Centerfield

d'Kong76 wrote: The TV booth said the Mets believe now that there is enough of a window to get this one in. Wheeler is starting to wobble. Have the Mets changed their mind after that HR? Because I feel like it's dangerous for the players to be out there. Everyone should just go home and get a good night's sleep. Start this game over on a common off day.

Ok. So if they stop the game and can't resume, this game disappears right? RAIN!!!

He's been really taxed since his last off-day on Monday.

Sometimes the nicknames just write themselves. LOBaton. (with respect given to the old METSSC) BLOW-baton (courtesy JCL) Jose Lobotomy.

Wasn't he a minority owner who had already been fired as team president by then? My pre-'83 Mets history stinks. But that's what I understood. Really this problem started when Joan Payson failed to raise her children as avid Mets fans. Bad parenting.

This is the right move. I mean, it was the right move 10 days ago, but I applaud them for eventually doing the right thing.

41Forever wrote: I brought up the Steinbrenners. If you're too young to remember M. Donald Grant, then you definitely didn't live through the utter nonsense of the Steinbrenners in the 1970s and early 1980s I've touched on this before, but as I've gotten older, I see more of the gray, and not just sticking out from under my Mets cap. I think when we start deciding that people are "shit people," it's as if we're saying they're all bad. I don't agree with everything the owners have done, but I've also lived through far worse. I'll always be grateful that the Wilpons bought the team from the previous group. We've had some amazing periods of success -- maybe more than a bunch of other teams -- and some awful down years. There are far, far worse owners and very few perfect ones. But hey, I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I try to look for the good. We kicked some butt last night. I do like the pet photos. My cat, Tug, won't wear anything cool. I get that it's a tough call between the two. On the one hand, you have Fred and Jeff Wilpon who fail to spend like a big market team, throw tantrums when others do, meddle in medical decisions, alienate beloved former players, criticize a female employee for getting pregnant out of wedlock, fire her, and eventually settle with her when she brings a lawsuit, criticize their own players in a New Yorker article, build a ballpark in homage to the ballpark of another team, name their rotunda after a great player from that other team, take part in the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, get sued as a result of it, negotiate a secret loan from their buddy the Commissioner, and take out personal loans against the franchise, crippling the on-field product for the foreseeable future. And on the other hand, Hal Steinbrenner is George's son. I mean. How do you choose?

It was an insult directed at me. Because I complained that are owners are shit people. Then someone else brought up the Steinbrenners, and said they were worse. And I said no, they're not, pointing out the obvious. But now that makes me a wannabe Yankee fan. At least my insults are direct and personal, rather than that passive aggressive shit.

ceetar had that IGT streak back in April of 2015. If he goes on another run like that we'll be back in business. Let's give a start to the defensive wizard WHO THEY CANNOT GET OUT IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES.

In 17 games, Tomas Nido had 6 total bases. Mesoraco had 7 last night.

Yeah, so just like we all predicted, that lineup scored 12 runs. Baseball. What a great game. This team badly needed a laugher. Surprised to see Callaway burn Lugo like that in a blowout. With Wheeler going today, they're likely to need help early. I guess he figures Gsellman is fresh.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Arenado is arguably the second-best position player in the league. So, yeah, he'll work at third. Machado would almost certainly work there, too. I'm not sure with what we're supposed to be agreeing or disagreeing. Is the premise that there are no, um, good/great players? If this is the case, well... I'll politely point out that you're forgetting a guy who's about 6 seasons in to what may be the best baseball career ever. Like, in history. And even if you leave him off your list... you've got Machados and Harpers and Bettses and Altuves and Correas and Bryants and Goldschmidts and Lindors all OVER the damn place. Kershaws and Klubers and Saleses and Scherzers and Thors, too. And Ohtanis! Oh, the Ohtanis! And reanimated Verlanders! And Bartolo! I mean, you can say you don't see the cool shit... but you'd have to be pretty willfully looking past some pretty obviously cool shit. I feel like I should get extra points for awesome hair.

STILL BATTING 1.000

Nymr83 wrote: I'm here tonight waiting out the rain - the Mets Hall of Fame is as lame as reported. Fortunately, the beer is cold. I'd try switching gears.

Maybe it can just thunderstorm until Cespedes and Plawecki are better.

I try to be careful with that sort of thing. I mean, unless there's some evidence (and more than just "look at the guy, he's huge"), I try to give the benefit of the doubt. It might be partly because I want to believe with all my heart that Piazza was clean.

Right. I was on board with the Wright extension as well. The rebuild was done by 2015, and Wright was still productive even then. If he hadn't had the SS, he would have been productive for a few years after even. Plus at that point I had no idea that the Mets never intended to spend like they had in the past. I understand that results are not guaranteed by a blow up rebuild. But it seems like unless you do a blow up rebuild, a smaller market team doesn't stand a chance. In order to defeat a big market juggernaut, you have to blow it up, then hope to win the lottery on a good number of prospects. I don't know. Maybe it can be done another way. What I can tell you is that the Mets way ain't working.

The teardown method is risky, and yes, it's unlikely but I feel like it's really the only way for a small market club to compete. Houston and KC pulled it off successfully. Other than them, the last 10 World Series winners followed the big market, spend money model. (Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Phils, Cardinals). The last time low payroll team won without a complete rebuild was the White Sox in 2005. (13th in payroll, no blow up rebuild).

Benjamin Grimm wrote: When we talk about guys who "got away with it" I'd say Nolan Ryan has to be at the top of the list. Really? How do you know?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I would never advocate for the Mets to do the tear-down thing. I would have them, each year, say where are our weaknesses and how can we best address them? And the option to spend big on a free agent or two has to be on the table. And I think that this is what the Mets have been doing, but in a too wishy-washy manner. They went big on Cespedes, but they mix in too much bargain hunting. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with bargain hunting, but it's been a larger part of the plan than it should be. So spend more? Or spend more wisely? (Forego the Fraziers, Vargases and Bruces and go for one big ticket FA?) I mean, I'd be on board with what you propose. Sure as hell beats a tear down. But do you think the Wilpons can afford this?

Centerfield wrote: I think you have to commit to one or another. Either go big and spend money and be like the Red Sox/Yankees/Dodgers, or embrace the small market mentality and go the nuclear route. If you have a top payroll, you can try to win every year like the teams I mention. If you don't, and you're a small market team, the best way to go for a championship is to do a nuclear rebuild. The steps I mention above are the general steps of a successful nuclear rebuild. There are teams that spend a lot of money but fail. Winning is hard. There are teams that try a nuclear rebuild but fail. Winning is hard. In my opinion, if you do neither of the two (don't spend money, never rebuild) you will forever be in no-man's land, where you win around 75-85 games year after year. You will never have any sustained success, and you only win once in a blue moon when everything happens to break the right way.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't want the Mets to ever be in Step One. I don't think it's necessary. They should be always be doing Steps Two and Three simultaneously, like the Braves did so successfully in the 1990s. Under the five-step scenario, those few years that you're in Step Three will probably get you a few playoff appearances, but won't guarantee a World Series win before Step Four takes over. The end result may not be any different from the cycle we've seen with the Mets. I would love to always be in Steps 2 and 3 too. The problem with that model is that it requires the club to spend money. During the 1990's, Atlanta consistently had one of the top payrolls in baseball. I'm resigned to the fact that they won't spend like that again. I know Step 1 sucks, but I'd be all for if it meant we got a Step 3. I don't even remember the last time I felt like we were in Step 3.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield, you've come at one guy this morning as being "stupid and lazy," and another as a "dumbass." I'm sorry the team has played poorly of late, but please lets try to be cool to one another. I agree that we should be cool to one another. But "cool" should go beyond "don't use bad words". Resisting such attacks would be a lovely place to start. It's pretty much all we've ever asked. Sure. That's fair. But I am asking you, and everyone else, to be cognizant of attacks that come in different forms. "there's a strong, large, and persistent faction of the Mets fanbase that wishes they were Yankee fans and it's only stubborn pride, opportunity, or tradition that keeps them from making the switch." "You're stupid. You secretly want to be a Yankee fan. We all know it." These two convey the same insult. One insult is just wearing fancier clothes. "I would counter that there are's a large contingent of Mets fans who feel any criticism of the team reveals a secret desire to root for another team. This preposterous idea helps justify their blind devotion to the Mets while willfully refusing to see any flaws." "No dumbass. We want our organization to have good, smart owners who are committed to winning and don’t engage in fraud." Same insult. Fancier clothes.

To illustrate what I mean, I feel like this is more or less a successful rebuild: 1. Step 1: Tear it down During these years, it's expected that you won't win. You lose, you try to draft Bryce Harper and Steven Strassburg. You sign Ronald Acuna Jr. as an international free agent. You trade your valuable players for more prospects, or international pool money, and you build a core of young talent. You slash payroll to nothing. It's low, attendance is low, and you go into the season expecting to lose, a lot. Win Expectation: 60-70. 2. Step 2: Develop the Talent Eventually, your prospects make their way through the system and start making their debuts. You find useful players having good years, and maybe you sell them off to get more young talent. Attendance picks up as people start to buy in. People want to see the debut of Harper, or Acuna, etc. Payroll remains dirt low. So maybe with the increased attendance you make a few bucks and can store some of that away. Hell, maybe if everything goes right you snag a Wild Card and go on a surprise run. It's a bonus. You're not done yet. Win Expectation: 75-85 games. 3. Step 3: Go for it. Your prospects have all arrived. They are tearing it up. You start to increase payroll. You have to since some of your guys are arbitration eligible. For the first time in years, you sign free agents to fill out your roster. You trade minor leaguers to bring in Justin Verlander, or Andrew Miller. You keep this core together and try to win it all. The goal is to win the division and win the World Series. Unquestionably, you are one of the best teams in baseball. Win Expectation: 95-100 games. 4. Step 4: Decline You've lost some of your top guys but you remain competitive. You're already maxed out on payroll, but you try to catch lightning in a bottle and take a chance on some question marks. Coming back from TJ surgery? Let's try that guy for cheap. If we get a few breaks maybe we can steal the division, or snag a wild card. We're not deep though, so a few injuries will probably sink us. Win Expectation: 80-85 games. 5. Step 5: Tear it down again Your window as closed. Trade away your talent for prospects. Start over again. I fee like the Mets will forever be stuck in Step 4.

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield, you've come at one guy this morning as being "stupid and lazy," and another as a "dumbass." I'm sorry the team has played poorly of late, but please lets try to be cool to one another. I agree that we should be cool to one another. But "cool" should go beyond "don't use bad words". At the end of this thread, after reading all the feedback, I accepted that you can justify rooting for the Mets by teaching your kid the lesson of overcoming adversity. And if you can separate the club from its owners, the Madoff scandal, the Castergine lawsuit, etc., then all the shortcomings of the Wilpons, can be viewed as obstacles facing the Mets, rather than character traits of the Mets. Simply put: Scenario A: The Mets engaged in fraud, and have now put themselves at a disadvantage competitively. They also tend to be dicks to pregnant women. Can you justify rooting for the Mets? No way. Scenario B: The Mets are a noble team that have been handcuffed by their crooked owners. Can you justify rooting for the Mets? Absolutely. End of discussion really, for my purposes. Then, it was suggested that the Wilpons are not so bad. In fact, they are better than the owners across town. This is patently not true. Even during the George years, you never questioned his desire to win above all else, even if the method was crooked. And certainly since then, they have not been anything but a solid, well run team. Pointing this out is not "lionizing" anyone. Nor is it indicative of some secret desire to be a Yankee fan. Both ideas are an insult far worse than "dumbass". You don't have to use potty words to be a jerk. So when I say that the person who conveyed this idea is a dumbass, it's an expression of anger reacting to a stupid accusation. I want my team to have smart, ethical, trustworthy, competent ownership. That doesn't make me a secret Yankee fan. I stand by the idea that the post in the other thread is stupid and lazy. There are two pages of posts all talking about the need to commit to one philosophy or the other. A post the comes in and refutes a theory that literally no one has proposed is dumb and a waste of time.