Edgy MD wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000. It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension. And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout. It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say. I see Olerud staying but perhaps they figure they don't need the boost from A-Rod as much and don't even persue him as hard. I'm sure they still make the same deal to Bonilla, probably even more willing to get him off the team with that win-win-win deal. (off the team, both parties make money) Per this exercise they won't actually win again, but being in the playoffs a couple more times from say 2000-2002 after already winning one would still be very nice.