soupcan

metirish wrote: In my defence in the early 1990's I was living in Ireland and probably had never even heard of the Mets let alone Ron Darling, so I learn everyday. I figured as much irish. Just giving you a hard time.

Meanwhile Wagner is saying that he's 'just too strong' and that's affecting his control. soupcan is skeptical because if he was too strong why is he topping out at 95?

Old news irish. Any Mets fan worth his salt knows this. It was pretty common knowledge in the early 90's when Darling and Viola were Mets.

Did you catch Darling's comment about the trivia question? The question was: Who was the last VP to throw out the first pitch in a Washington DC home opener? The answer was Somebody Sherman in 1912. Darling went on to say that Sherman was Taft's VP. Taft was a Yalie and had a special seat behind homeplate at Yale Stadium that was basically a double-wide because of Taft's girth. Boola-Boola (yawn).

Nice job there cooby snack.

metirish wrote: ] Jeter homers and immediately receives an on-the-air blow job from Suzyn. Brilliant quote Elster....I might have to steal that line... I liked it too.

Hey Beltran... ka-BOOOOOOOOOOOm

And here I am pining away for Ron Swoboda.

="Elster88"] This is getting ridiculous. Agreed. ="Elster88"]Do I really have to explain? They signed him to do his best, and were expecting a certain output based on what they had observed previously. That's right and he's not giving them (the owners, the fans) what they expected. ="Elster88"]These are simple concepts. Agreed.

Elster88 wrote: You'll have to show me the spot in a contract where a player guarantees certain statistics Oh it's not in the contract. If it were nobody would be making anything close to what they are. But it certainly is implied. If it weren't then how come I can't sign a contract with the Mets for $120 million then? I'll try my best, I won't have great results but I promise to go out there everyday and give it my best effort. When they gave him that contract did they say all we want is effort? If you give us a .268 average and 16 homeruns as long as you try hard that'll be great? I don't think so. ="Yancy Street Gang"]But booing a guy when he steps up to the plate sends a different message than booing him when he pops up with a runner on third. The latter says, "We don't like that you didn't get the job done" and the former says, "We don't like YOU!" He was getting booed for underperforming last year.

Edgy DC wrote: We're just going in a circle. Agreed. Can we stop now? ="Elster88"]Were you booed for that entire workday by 56,000 people in a canyon-shaped building that magnifies every noise? I'm not a pro athlete but if I were that's what I would expect. ="Elster88"]Were you even booed by the one person (be it a customer, client, or your boss) who didn't get your best results on that day? Um, yeah. I get berated by customers if something doesn't go smoothly. Happens more than I'd like to admit. And you know what my philosophy is..? The customer is always right. Even if whatever happens is no fault of mine, I don't pass the buck, I take the 'abuse' because ultimately the customer utilized my services to get what he wanted. If for whatever reason he didn't get it because of the resources I chose to use, that's MY fault. I may have been trying hard but the bottom line is the results were not there for the customer. ="Elster88"]Here's an interesting concept: He is earning his money whether he's hitting .200 or .350. He was paid to try his hardest. No he's not. The contract he signed was based on the average numbers he's produced his entire careeer. He is NOT paid for effort he is paid for results.

="Edgy DC"]I don't make much. I think I'm entitled to not to have nasty crap screamed at me, also. Not because of what I make, simply taste, decency, and the social contract. I think everybody feels they're entitled to that. I think the people who believe they can buy their way into a new level of entitlement are fans reasoning that they bought a ticket, they're entitled to satisfying results and to abuse those who aren't able to produce them. Even people booing the other team is often just a pantomime, rarely vile in the way of a fans turning on a struglling home-team player. And if they do turn it up --- racial abuse or villification along the order of John Rocker returning to Shea, I'm really embarrassed. I agree that you shouldn't have nasty crap screamed at you. For many reasons, not the least of which being the fact that you are not (as far as I know) a professional athlete. I do not walk down the street yelling nasty crap at John Q. Public. As a matter of fact, as I have stated several times in this thread, I don't yell nasty crap at anyone. When I'm at the ballpark and I choose to boo, that is exactly what I do - "BOOOOOOO!". Why do you all have such difficulty believing that? I'm really not a bad guy. I don't spit in the subway, I never litter. I say hello, please and thank to pretty much everyone I come in contact with if the moment suits it. Again - I do not agree with your use of the word 'abuse'. Especially in the context which we are discussing. Booing an athlete at a sporting event is not abuse. Screaming nasty crap, throwing things, accosting someone - THAT is abuse. Now I thought I had been defending myself booing throughout this thread but if I have to defend people that scream profanities and throw things at players, well I can't, won't and have no reason to. I'm just as appaled at those actions as any of you. I simply boo. ="Edgy DC"]Nonetheless, they do deal with it. I'm not sure how it is you're arguing that they don't I argue that they don't because Beltran obviously is taking issue with it. Dealing with it to me means accepting the fact that he did not produce what he was paid to produce last season, fans are perturbed, they are showing their pertubedness. He may not like it but he certainly should understand it. His statements and actions early last week showed that he was pissed off he was being booed. Like he did nothing at all to deserve it. He didn't do what he took money to do and he's mad he's being called on it - Booo!

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Should be able to, yes. But what if he can't? Doesn't it then become counterproductive to your interests in having a successful player on a successful team? I guess it is counterproductive, yes. ="Edgy DC"]Screw the rich! Their dogs, too! I don't have issue with them making the money.I have issue with them having a sense of entitlement once they've taken money. The people in the stands are the reason they are making those sums. If they want to boo these guys, these guys should deal with it. The players are going to have the last laugh anyway. I don't have a problem with their dogs.

Saying 'Freedom of Expression' kind of gives it a weight that I don't intend, but yeah, if my freedom to express myself (to 'BOO!') must be supressed - by me - in the interest of allowing the team I am a fan of (and a supporter of) to sign a player that otherwise wouldn't sign with my team if I did 'Boo!' - then yeah. that's what I'm resorting to. Again I don't see why these athletes should be treated with kid gloves. They make a LOT of money and part of the reason they do is because their work environment is often times a very uncomfortable place. They are paid to produce no matter the atmosphere. And they know it and they accept it.. Maybe I'm a jerk, maybe I shouldn't boo a hometown guy, but no matter what I should be allowed to, it should be accepted and the player I'm booing should be able to deal with it and produce in spite of it.

duan wrote: Or maybe they recognise that by having a player friendly atmosphere they've had the opportunity to achieve far above what the Cardinals (going by market size, spending power etc) would be expected to achieve. So now we have to sacrifice our freedom of expression so our teams can be deemed worthy of throwing $100 million dollars at some underachieving jerk? duan wrote: In Ireland the word "supporter" is interchangeable with "fan". That's how it should be isn't it? Sure why not? But now that I 'support' the team I can't show dissatisfaction with them?

Dude's pitching well though and has been for a while now...

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Did anyone ask him about Woody? I didn't hear anyone ask about Woody but I only heard maybe the last 10 minutes of the show. I would've asked him about his inside the parker that capped a 10 run inning at Shea on Fireworks night. ="MFS62"]How often have you listened to the hosts not ask a question you would have? How many fans never get the chance to speak to a sports celebrity, but would love to? Yeah but 9 times out of 10, the idiots who call up don't ask good questions anyway - it's always "I was a big fan, you were great, thanks very much."

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Good interview. Flynn grew up as as a Vada Pinson fan, which something I have in common with him. He described in detail finding out (from Pete Rose during a game against the Phils) that he had been traded to the Mets for Seaver. His response "Straight up?" You forgot to include Rose's pretty funny response: "Not hardly." That was a pleasent surprise for me to hear Flynn on WFAN as I tooling around running errands yesterday. ="Frayed Knot"]There's something about his (IMO) over-infatuation with the past at the expense of the current, plus his interviewing technique esp with his insistance on putting callers on to ask his subjects questions which usually comes off as very lame. Agree 100%.

I did think it was gone. I was standing about 30 feet from him and didn't see it. Sadly, I was mistaken.

Edgy DC wrote: Does Beltran typically drive through that section of Mount Vernon at dawn in January? Yes.

My banner (Thanks to CF)

Or Boston even.

Dollars to doughnuts, Glavine's back in Hotlanta next year.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Are you rooting for the Mets to finish in the black in 2006, or in the playoffs? That's funny. ="Rotblatt"]Weaver, Mulder, Zito, Contreras, Schmidt & Wood Didn't Contreras just a big extension with a no-trade?

Just a tad early for those remarks irish, but we can always be hopeful.