Ceetar

I mean, maybe I'm just too analytical to be a good sports fan. It's all entertainment, and that includes all the 'who will sign where?!?' the 'lolmets' stuff. the coverage of the GM search. It's meant to illicit a reaction and engagement. It may be a little bit above the nonsense takes of sports radio, but only barely. The GM candidate I like is better than the GM candidate you like and the team is stupid to consider this or that. It's all just an extension of 'rah rah my team is better than yours'. A lot of what annoys me about LolMets coverage is that we're all supposed to be on the same side. It's maybe the only thing I envy about being a Yankees fans, the blind loyalty stuff. Ultimately, even if you think your team did something really stupid, you still want that stupid thing to work out. I want Jay Bruce to hit 45 home runs next season splitting time playing hopefully not too defense at first base and RF. So this nonsense by Sherman/Puma/others is just that. Can you believe the Mets didn't even talk to _this guy_ or _that guy_? There are two types of 'journalism' if you want to call it that. There's this kind, the entertainment kind, the talking and opining about what is happening kind. And then there's the digging stuff. The uncovering of facts. That's what's lacking from sports/the Mets. It really feels like we're going off that one quote on the GM search. And granted, we won't hear more from the team necessarily, but that's what reporting is right? digging for it? Once some of these candidates are dismissed maybe we can get one of them to talk? Another example is the Cespedes surgery. There are two surgeries but one recovery period and everyone's just re-printing press releases. No one's asking if that recovery time is total or from the second surgery, and what the intricacies of that are. No one asked which foot was first (And I was correct in my assumption that it was be his right) and if the order mattered. I was ridiculed by supposed reporter Matt Ehalt for asking for this clarification. (he's aggressively dismissive of people on Twitter and actively searches his names to get into fights..) I'm good with anonymous sources, they're necessary, but if you're going to use them you need to tell me why I should believe their opinion. Also, when you say "according to sources" instead of something like "Someone I spoke to within the Mets organization" it's pretty obvious you just mean the other reports that are out there that you're just piggybacking on. You haven't confirmed that tidbit. Sherman floats a ridiculous theory at the end of the piece, completely unsourced and just out of his own head. That's not journalism. He suggests that the search might be rigged, and hits LOLMets narrative points about the Dodgers. And wtf is this? This is the climax of his piece. This is the point he's trying to hammer home? Also, it is worth remembering that strawberries, pickles and whiskey all are delicious, but that doesn’t mean they go well together. Perhaps a gifted chef could effectively blend them.

no it's not. I actually read this one. It's full of quotes like I said. We've gotten like one non-committal second-hand quote on this entire process that was a wishy washy indictment of stats from Fred, but had nothing about whether that would actually influence decision making. I'm gonna need more than an anonymous opinion from a random person about what he or she thinks the Mets are doing to believe 99% of the press on this isn't just running off that one quote from a month ago.

There are others, i think they're doing more this week and I can't tell if the rumors of a "candidate we don't know" were subsequently leaked or not.

Sherman isn't a baseball insider, he's an idiot. All the post contains is unsourced opinions. Literally "Someone that I won't named BELIEVES this to be the case". That's literally nothing.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a GM to consult with his bosses before major moves, such as committing $300 million to a someone or trading a franchise player. So 100 per cent autonomy is probably too much to ask, but I agree that the Mets should hire someone whose philosophy matches what they're looking for, and give him (or her) the latitude to execute that philosophy. Of course. That's completely reasonable. I'm thinking of exchanges like: I think you should sign Jay Bruce. Ok boss, but our analytics department suggest that Jay is on the downturn of his career, and his peripherals suggest that... I think you should sign Jay Bruce. Let's get him. The analytics didn't, and shouldn't, have said that. Bruce's numbers were suggestive of him still being a pretty useful one-dimensional player. I still think this is an Alderson failing and not a Wilpon one. if Sandy was really against him it was really easy NOT to give him that much money right? If the Wilpons are as cheap and thrifty as the narrative said, selling Nimmo as the answer over him should've been easy. Vargas was the one that was really cited as being bad analytically, but they also barely gave him any money and he actually was a pretty good fit for what Sandy claimed to be looking for. The analytics department advising (not telling) him that doesn't change anything, especially if Sandy really wanted a better analytics dept. Like, was it good enough to trust on this but not good enough as whole? Pick your narrative please, not just retroactively. And it's not like we've gotten word that the Mets really should've signed X starter over him. None of the starters were good. Did you like Vargas over Montero? that seems like a reasonable bet. But again, they could've just rolled with Montero/Lugo/Gsellman et al. There are so many logical fallacies in the damn ownership narrative it's hard to keep straight.

Centerfield wrote: I don't agree with the idea that Jeff is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He could, at any time, take responsibility for what he's done and change his ways. "I'm sure you've all heard rumors about our involvement, some might call it "meddling", during the past regime. Look, we are looking for a wholesale change in philosophy. Our new GM will have full authority. Our only job will be to give him the resources that a big market GM should have, and that's what we'll do. Provide the bankroll. How he or she chooses to spend that, or not spend that, will be up to that person." Then, you know, follow through and do it. No one would believe him if he made that statement. He'd have to be really fucking candid, and self-aware. I don't think he's capable of that. He could not meddle AND not raise the budget. To be perfectly straight-forward, open and honest about the budget he'd have to open the books, which he won't do, and I'm not sure he'd even be able to on his own. And then he'd have to explain, in depth, to journalists not finance people, which he's counting as revenue, what he's counting as expenses, specifically for the Mets, and specifically for not the Mets, and which loans are on Mets stuff versus personal stuff, etc. And even if he did all that, there would still be intense criticism(and perhaps legal ones, though since no one cares about white collar financial crime anymore, maybe not) of how he decided allocate that stuff. Like if he doesn't count the naming rights for Citi Field under Mets revenue but counts the stadium loans as Mets expenses (I'm like 70% sure they do this). And of course, there's a good shot he only tangentially understands that stuff, as he has finance guys doing most of it. And really, it doesn't matter. Even an off the record quote from Jeff that's something like "I always liked Jason Kipnis" would be considered meddling if it's printed even if he never said it to the Mets front office. Meanwhile Hal Steinbrenner can say he was "hot and heavy" in the Stanton negotiations and criticize his manager's decisions with no repercussions. There is only one real way the Wilpons can get a little less heat on them. continued winning. That's it. A WS win will take the media heat off. For the fans I think they'll maybe tolerate one loss in a row, but that second loss in a row will be blood in the water, even if it's the two in a row after going 160-0.

The Red Sox are playing Doctor Who music during replay reviews so..

metirish wrote: yeah, the local writers really are reveling in reporting that no one wants the job , it all looks awful too , Jeff really needs to fuck off away Well i mean, he's gotta be the guy that hires the new guy/gal(s). It's lose/lose either way. There's no candidate that won't get criticized by some section of both the fanbase and media. There's no comment Jeff can make that will convince anyone he doesn't meddle nor will he admit that he does meddle (more than others). When he tries he ends up bashing Alderson so it's better if he shuts up, but then he's criticized for not talking enough. I guess I'm just happy the media didn't bang down the door to chemo treatments to get a counter-quote from Sandy. Although I'm a little surprised they didn't.

I'm not convinced some of these guys were even actual candidates rather than media candidates. Byrnes interviewed last time right? Does this count as 'reporting'. Sherman called Byrnes and asked if he had an interview. He said no. I could call you and ask you that, is that reporting or in any way useful information? Maybe all this bs about no one wanting to interview with the Mets is because the media is running around asking guys they're not interviewing if they're interviewing and getting 'no' responses. "Haha, look at all these guys that don't want to work for the Mets! Never mind that the Mets didn't really consider them either!"

Sure, but look at the coverage of the Mets when they acquired Cespedes. It's a risk-reward calculation that all teams do. Or hell, when they acquired J.J. Putz.

It's _all_ players, not just Mets players. It's bad, and a bad sign of how not-seriously other players take these things. But I also imagine that this isn't something players pored over. "Hey, this guy is probably done, and he wasn't whiny about it was it? I played with him, he seems fun" boom. He's been around enough that he's played with a lot more people than probably anyone else. Popularity contest. That they didn't even think "ugh, the violence thing. I'll just check Flores." is it's own incitement of course.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: its incredibly disappointing to hear they can't come to as much as a decision to hire a baseball CEO and a COO, or just one, as it is to know they don't know what kind of people they need, and old school scout or a pocket protector nerd. in the end you'll know that they'll be influenced by the debate -- and so whatever they do they will do for all the wrong reasons, to make a show oneed. in fact I don't doubt that these stories are to a degree plants to take the temperature of the fans. Hopefully they'll be influenced most by the candidates, the up in your face "This is how I bring you the parade" stuff. And hopefully the guy peddling it the best it's a huckster. "We're gonna bring in the best guys, just the best guys, to work with our guys and really grind out the wins" The Wilpons might be swayed by that bravado, but they've failed that way enough too that maybe it won't be enough over the well-prepared candidate citing stats and angles. My guess as to the first part is that they really only want to hire one person, more in fear of being criticized for the "too many GMs" nonsense that's dumb because everyone does that, and less in the "I want to meddle more" because he's the owner and like all owners, will and can meddle no matter who they hire. I think they're just leaving the door open in case they really love two candidates or one demands that higher role, or demands to bring in his own GM or something like that. That's gotta be a tough sell though. You can't really interview someone for a GM job and tell them it might be the GM job in charge of it all, or it might be second fiddle to a president type role.

Frayed Knot wrote: DeeDee Gregorius is the latest position player to need Tommy John surgery. And they've known about the issue for years.

d'Kong76 wrote: Interrupting with two cents here... I know technically losing the one-game 'playoff' is making the post-season but c'mon does anyone really feeling like it's making the playoffs? It's artificial nonsense. it's all artificial nonsense. It's the playoffs, like it or not. Anything can happen in one game, the Yankees got in the same way this year.

They played really well in the second half, and I enjoyed the second half. It's not misleading to point that out, especially to a casual or non-baseball fan unless they were specifically asking if they're in the playoffs. Hey CF, did the Lincolns enjoy the play? CF: OMG, they couldn't stop laughing during Act 1!* *This answer is not misleading since the Lincolns really did enjoy Act 1, and the person did not specifically ask if anyone was murdered. The analogy to this is if MLB kicked the Mets out of the league at the end of your 7/8 example. regardless, it's meaningless small talk. Non-baseball fan almost definitely does not want a long rant about how they should've signed Chacin instead of Vargas and how much of a disaster Bruce and Reyes were. You can't mislead someone when they don't actually care about your answer. If you want to phrase it as "Did the Mets have a good year?" well, there were some highlights. It certainly wasn't "Oh, I actually died during the season" bad. Or "The president got killed during it" or whatever. Did they stop running Our American Cousin after that day? Is it not feasible that someone would, legitimately, want to know how it was?

Centerfield wrote: Let's say a non baseball fan asked me in September, "Hey CF, how are the Mets doing?" I can give a 41Forever answer: They've won 6 out of their last 7 and just destroyed Boston 8-0! This statement is true, but it's intentionally misleading. The Mets are terrible, but this answer is meant to create a false conclusion for the reader. Now, let's try an optimist's answer: Eh, pretty crappy. But their young kids are coming around, and we are playing much better since they got called up. So high hopes for next year! They played really well in the second half, and I enjoyed the second half. It's not misleading to point that out, especially to a casual or non-baseball fan unless they were specifically asking if they're in the playoffs. There's a direct connection between players that are very good on the Mets right now, and ones that helped them make the playoffs in 2015 and 2016. Drawing a line from now to say, 2002, is less relevant. What does the 2002 Mets, Steve Phillips, pre-moneyball, pre-Madoff, pre-luxurytax, etc, have to do with what the Mets are today? Almost absolutely nothing. At this point I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue besides that you want to make it abundantly clear that the Mets have sucked a lot. I'm not sure how you derive enjoyment from this constant sense that the Mets are the worst at everything, will screw everything up, and cannot possibly succeed in their current state except by dumb luck?

HahnSolo wrote: When does trading season re-open? Or does it ever close? I mean, I don't remember a trade completed during the LDS before, so maybe I just assumed you couldn't do it until a certain time. International pool money! That's the key. That's why this is linked to Victor Victor Mesa. Him and his brother were only deemed eligible to be signed on 9/14. So Marlins basically are looking to up the cash they have to use, and have been seeing who they can sell off for it.

*Looks at Mets roster* *Looks at available players* They're not coming from the same place as the 2008 Yanks, but I'd put reasonable odds on them being a generally above average team for most of the next 10 years with a few playoff appearances. Regardless, this was a thread about the Yankees right? They'll definitely be able to hit in 2019, but let's see what they do about the pitching. They've had a great bullpen for a while, but bullpens and relievers go bad fast. If they make the wrong moves, they could have a lot of issues.

They got some best case scenario stuff out of that.

Oh man, I really do hope the Yankees get spend-happy. It'll be like when they splurged in 2009. They got a good three years or so out of that class, and managed to win it all once, but it was a big reason they were up against it until recently. They have a budget and a limit as well, and spending it all at once is almost never a good idea. Additionally, a lot of teams will be spending this offseason. Teams have been planning for it. Yankees might not be able to overspend on the top 3 or so guys and might again have to overspend on the second tier guys which is where you can get into trouble.

Jewish angle will probably go over well in the organization.

metirish wrote: Text conversation with two MFY loving friends Me - hey charlie might be time for you to warm up , CC looks shot, getting hit hard" CHarlie - Typical Mets fan....we still have 26 more wins than you Me - it's banter, fucking relax ( I knew you would give me a history lesson, never fails" God, what assholes I think the come back to that nonsense is "Well, then I guess the Mets were JUST AS SUCCESSFUL in 2018"

Final Rounds Mets - 2015 Rangers - '13/'14 Devils - '11/'12 Giants - '11/'12 Yankees - '09 Nets '02/'03 Knicks '98/'99 Sabres - '98/'99 Bills - '93 Islanders - '83/'84 Jets - '68/'69

I'm glad there will be some stupid stuff to write about Stanton, umpiring, and the Yankees all offseason to distract from all the stupid stuff written about the Mets GM search. I'm not looking forward to the "BRIAN CASHMAN NEEDS TO GO TO FLUSHING AND JUST TAKE DEGROM NOW RIGHT NOW DO IT OR GET OUT" stuff though.

I would imagine it's quite the opposite.