Master Index of Archived Threads


Ten Years

Centerfield Sep 22 2010 10:19 AM

In the last ten years, including 2010,... *The Mets have one post-season appearance (2006) *The Mets have been in contention 5 years, and been out of contention (double digit deficit in games) in the other 5. In two of those years where they were within single digits, they were only remotely in contention (2001 - 6 games; 2005 - 7 games). Meaning they were only realistically in contention 3 years. *They have a record of 795-812. *They will have had 5 losing seasons (if they remain below .500 this year). Meanwhile, they maintain an incredible competitive advantage because of their payroll/resources. This is some serious mis-management that goes beyond bunting too often.

Edgy DC Sep 22 2010 10:32 AM Re: Ten Years

It's a little tough to hang them today for 2002-2004, no?

TransMonk Sep 22 2010 10:34 AM Re: Ten Years

Just when I thought I couldn't feel any worse about my team... Thanks CF.

TransMonk Sep 22 2010 10:37 AM Re: Ten Years

Edgy DC wrote: It's a little tough to hang them today for 2002-2004, no? This makes me feel better. Didn't they have the best record in baseball for like a 2 1/2 year stretch at some point late in the decade as well?

Edgy DC Sep 22 2010 10:44 AM Re: Ten Years

Over the last five years, they are 418-381, .523. I'd be surprised if Omar doesn't leave the team with one of two or three top winning percentages of any of their general managers ever.

Centerfield Sep 22 2010 12:38 PM Re: Ten Years

By comparison, the Red Sox, who have similar resources to the Mets, but also have the MFY's in their division, have been over .500 every year for the past 10 years. They have 6 post-season berths, and 2 World Series titles.

metirish Sep 22 2010 12:50 PM Re: Ten Years

Centerfield wrote: By comparison, the Red Sox, who have similar resources to the Mets, but also have the MFY's in their division, have been over .500 every year for the past 10 years. They have 6 post-season berths, and 2 World Series titles. Exactly , they have won and the Mets haven't won anything except one division title.

TransMonk Sep 22 2010 12:55 PM Re: Ten Years

The Mets have as many division winning seasons as the Red Sox in the past ten. As many 97+ win seasons, as well.

Gwreck Sep 22 2010 09:39 PM Re: Ten Years

Centerfield wrote: Meanwhile, they maintain an incredible competitive advantage because of their payroll/resources. This is some serious mis-management that goes beyond bunting too often. Ok. But how many postseason appearances should they have had in the past 10 years? Serious question.

Nymr83 Sep 22 2010 10:00 PM Re: Ten Years

It's a little tough to hang them today for 2002-2004, no? that depends on who exactly you are trying to "hang." If you're going after Manuel or Minaya its unfair. If you're going after the Wilpons its fair game, I think.

Zvon Sep 22 2010 10:13 PM Re: Ten Years

Gwreck wrote: Centerfield wrote: Meanwhile, they maintain an incredible competitive advantage because of their payroll/resources. This is some serious mis-management that goes beyond bunting too often. Ok. But how many postseason appearances should they have had in the past 10 years? Serious question. I can seriously answer 3, and if the Phils developed in a different way and did not rise to the heights they have (in that winning does breed confidence) due to the Mets making the postseason in 06, 07,& 08 then possibly more.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2010 07:26 AM Re: Ten Years

Nymr83 wrote: It's a little tough to hang them today for 2002-2004, no? that depends on who exactly you are trying to "hang." If you're going after Manuel or Minaya its unfair. If you're going after the Wilpons its fair game, I think. Maybe, but I think you shouldn't be trying to hang anybody. Examine all facts, then do what's best accordingly, not decide who you want to hang and choose the facts that serve that end. Not that I think centerfield was doing that, but I'm leery when you phrase the issue that way. Framing the data over ten years makes things look bad, but framing it over the history of the franchise paints an ugly picture too. Oviously, however, more recent data is more relevent. Is ten years appropriate? Well, if you cut it more closely, the first five years featured a .467 winning percentage and the second five years a .523 winning percentage. This suggests (if you cut it no closer) that things are trending positively. But we know that those five years features (1) a strong division chamipion falling just short of the World Series, followed by (2) two years of good teams failing in September, followed by (3) two years of teams aspiring to mediocrity as they failed to adequately anticipate/deal with injuriries and other personnel crises. That suggests it's time for change and I think we all anticipate such. But I think it gives us a more accurate picture of how desperate things are than the ten-year view.

Centerfield Sep 23 2010 07:50 AM Re: Ten Years

Honestly, I'm not sure what my point was, other than ten years is a round number and the performance is unsatisfactory to me. Realistically, I'd like 3 or 4 post-season berths in a 10 year span, and I don't see why we can't be in the mix 7 of those years. Teams like Boston and LA (over .500 9 years, playoffs 4 years), who are similar financially, have managed to compete consistently year after year. I don't see why this can't be the Mets. And it's not like the ten years before that were any better. I don't know if this is because of the Wilpons, or there is some organizational mindset, or just bad luck. But something's gotta change.

G-Fafif Sep 23 2010 08:12 AM Re: Ten Years

Meanwhile, they maintain an incredible competitive advantage because of their payroll/resources. Teams like Boston and LA (over .500 9 years, playoffs 4 years), who are similar financially, have managed to compete consistently year after year. The Nationals. The Marlins. The Pirates. The Astros. The Blue Jays. The Orioles. The Royals. The Mariners. The Athletics. One or possibly (but not likely) two among the Giants, the Padres and the Braves. And the Mets. In a couple of weeks, those will be the only teams to have not played a postseason game since October 19, 2006. Only one of them strikes me as a big-market franchise.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2010 08:23 AM Re: Ten Years

Yeah, but with "since 2006" and "big market," aren't we drawing deliberate arbitrary lines to amplify the insult? I mean, the Baltimore/DCmarket is huge. So is Miami, especially when you consider it's unshared. But why wade through ambigiuities over such? I would be no more comforted by the poor performance of my team, I reckon, if they played in Cincinnati. More important to attend to, I think --- regarding what's happening in the next couple of weeks --- is that the Mets are going to make huge decisions concerning the direction of the team over the next five years or longer. That seems to me a healthier focus as adovocates and partisans of the team than dredging up the failures of 2003 and 2004.

G-Fafif Sep 23 2010 08:51 AM Re: Ten Years

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, but with "since 2006" and "big market," aren't we drawing deliberate arbitrary lines to amplify the insult? I mean, the Baltimore/DCmarket is huge. So is Miami, especially when you consider it's unshared. But why through amgiuities over such? I would be no more comforted by the poor performance of my team, I reckon, if they played in Cincinnati. More important to attend to, I think --- regarding what's happening in the next couple of weeks --- is that the Mets are going to make huge decisions concerning the direction of the team over the next five years or longer. That seems to me a healthier focus as adovocates and partisans of the team than dredging up the failures of 2003 and 2004. October 19, 2006 is hardly an arbitrary line in the sand. More teams than not have played in the postseason since the Mets did. For an organization generally believed on the precipice of joining the elites (if not already being a member thereof), that's astonishing. Market size/resources is a squishier marker, I'll grant you. There was a time when Toronto was considered big market, and by population, I imagine it still is. I'll cede any first-hand insight on DC/Baltimore, but those strike me as peculiar cases, one a de facto expansion team (or operated as such), the other an incredible case study in mismanagement. But the whole package -- Mets in the No. 1 market, Mets with star-studded roster, Mets with ideal mix of youngsters and veterans -- was supposed to ensure a period of bliss. You'd think it would have produced at least one more postseason berth and something approaching continual success. As far as what is a "healthier focus," we've been known to sit here and dissect games, seasons and careers that took place 10, 20, 40 years ago. Is it healthy to remain mad about Terry Pendleton? Maybe not. Do we do it? Absolutely. If 2003 or whatever sticks in somebody's craw, so be it. We're long-term fans with long-term memories. Expressing the frustration (and the joy) associated with that condition is what we do. The failures of 2003 and 2004 were committed under the auspices of the same ownership that will be making those huge decisions regarding the next five years. It's probably at least a little relevant. Either way, I'm guessing we can walk toward 2011 and chew Duquette-era gum at the same time.

Lefty Specialist Sep 23 2010 09:01 AM Re: Ten Years

The failures stick out because there's been so little success. Yankee fans don't obsess about what Steve Trout did in 1987. Philly fans have let 1964 go. Red Sox fans welcomed Bill Buckner back to thunderous cheering. That's what winning does for you. It's because the Mets have had so little success in the past 25 years that the failures loom larger.

HahnSolo Sep 23 2010 09:09 AM Re: Ten Years Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 23 2010 09:11 AM

Welcome, Lefty Specialist. In these ten years, the Mets have had the highest payroll in the National League 7 times (once they were second, and two years, 2010 included, they were third). I realize payroll isn't always the key to winning, but that's a lousy ROI no matter how you look at it. source [url]http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2001

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 23 2010 09:10 AM Re: Ten Years

To be fair, Phils fans have let '64 go mostly because it's '64, and the overwhelming majority of these fans weren't alive then. ALSO: Miami is unshared in terms of major-league baseball, and Baltimore/DC is big, granted. Still, given the predominance-- both current and historical-- of college sports (and, um, other year-round athletic obsessions) in both areas, one might argue that they've got as much-- if not more-- of an uphill struggle for the sports-entertainment dollar as a third New York MLB team would. Monk wrote: I realize payroll isn't always the key to winning, but that's a lousy ROI no matter how you look at it. Don't get me thinking about ROI. Because then I start thinking about emotional ROI over the years, and I start feeling bad about buying LWYoungerPooper a Reyes jersey.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2010 09:25 AM Re: Ten Years

The Phillies have lost 10,000 games. If they were surfing toward a fourth place finish, they'd be talking about it, picking at scabs until they bleed and become flecked with pus. They aren't and they aren't. What matters is where they are now, and indeed what matters to the Mets is where they are now and what the next decision they make will be. And I'm certain that decrying 2003 and laying it today at the feet of mangement can only inform that decision poorly. October 19, 2006 is hardly an arbitrary line in the sand. Of course it is. Both you and centerfield are explicitly drawing lines back to the moment just after a point of success. Four years looks bad. Five years looks much better. Ten years looks bad. Twilve, thirteen, fourteen years looks much better. Give me the trend right now and that's a meaningful judgment.

Lefty Specialist Sep 23 2010 09:28 AM Re: Ten Years

Well, if we're talking trends, I'm not exactly looking forward to 2011 with this crew (even assuming a new manager/GM).

G-Fafif Sep 23 2010 09:28 AM Re: Ten Years

Edgy DC wrote: Give me the trend right now and that's a meaningful judgment. 0-5. Fire everybody.

metsmarathon Sep 23 2010 09:36 AM Re: Ten Years

to be sure, there are lessons to be learned from 2003. much as there are lessons to be learned from 2001, 2006, and 1986. but the important thing is that the trend is downward. [table:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]year[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]cumwin%[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]3yrw%[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]5yrw%[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2000[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.580[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2001[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.543[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2002[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.518[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.518[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2003[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.491[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.461[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a][/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2004[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.480[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.438[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.480[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2005[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.486[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.454[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.467[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2006[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.502[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.516[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.485[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2007[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.507[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.551[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.501[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2008[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.512[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.564[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.528[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2009[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.504[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.508[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.527[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][tr:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]2010[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.502[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.489[/td:2owuwl0a][td:2owuwl0a]0.523[/td:2owuwl0a][/tr:2owuwl0a][/table:2owuwl0a] our cumulative win percentage for the decade is trending down. our 3-year win percentage is trending down. our 5-year win percentage is trending down.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2010 09:41 AM Re: Ten Years

And I think we're all certain that there will be changes --- starting the day after the season.

RealityChuck Sep 23 2010 09:51 AM Re: Ten Years

Well, some of it is bad luck. If Billy Wagner doesn't blow out his arm in 2008, the team is in the postseason. Last year's injury plague would have stopped any team in the majors. The team had players in every position on the DL, including all five of their best (four of them for most of the season). Can't really blame management for that. Nor can you really blame the trainers, unless you're desperate for meaningless scapegoats. It's not like they're doing anything differently from any other team and you can't blame them for things like Bay's concussion, Wright's beaning, Reye's thyroid, Martinez hurting himself changing his uniform, Sanchez's car crash, etc. Many of the other things people whine about is pure hindsight. If Mets bloggers were the team's trainers, they'd be putting people on the DL for hangnails. As far as personnel is concerned, whenever they take a chance, it doesn't work. No one ever predicted Jason Bay would stop hitting HRs. Everyone was delighted when Beltran and Santana were signed. Oliver Perez was a risk -- that's why he was the team's second choice -- and it was a bad signing, but there was no better pitcher available at that point. The amount they paid is irrelevant: if he had signed at half the salary, the team would still have had the same problem with him. The team should have released him at the All-Star break, but, really, that was not going to make any difference. It's similar with Castillo -- and, despite everything, he did what he was expected to do with the bat, with a more than respectable .366 OBA during that time. He's not much good defensively, but Reuben Tejada would kill for a number like that. You judge a player by what he does on the field, not how much he's paid. Again, he probably should have been released in July, but that would not have improved the club all that much. The team's failure this year was due to the fact they stopped hitting in July and August. They are near the bottom in all major hitting categories and quite respectable as far as pitching is concerned. Minyana has made some bad trades (most notably, Heath Bell, who didn't need to be traded) but plenty of good ones (Ryan Church, John Maine, Delgado). He's made some bad signings (Perez, Igarashi, Matthews) and some very good ones (Martinez, Wagner, Rodriguez (whose issues are personal, not on the field*), R.A. Dickey). He also drafted Pelfrey, Davis, Murphy, Neise, Parnell, Thole, Tejada, Fmart, Duda, and Gee -- a nice crop of young players. I think that Minyana should be replaced, not because he's done a bad job, but because the fans, rightly or wrongly, blame him. Manual should go for the same reason. But too much of the problems in the paste four years were things that were beyond their control *If the team were running away with the division, people would be much more forgiving. He'd also have less time for texting.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2010 10:03 AM Re: Ten Years

I guess I should know this, but has anybody reported whether Minaya --- like Duquette before him --- has a clause that compels him to accept reassignment in order to keep earning his salary?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 23 2010 10:16 AM Re: Ten Years

I think I read somewhere that his contract is for GM duties, and if the Mets remove him from that position he's not obligated to continue working for them. I don't know if that's true or not, though. As for the Mets future, at least they seem to be going about with some kind of a plan, if what we've been reading is accurate. First they're going to hire a baseball overlord, who will determine who the GM will be. I don't know why the GM and the Baseball Overlord are two different positions, nor do I know which of the two would select the manager. But at least it seems that the Wilpons know an overhaul is necessary and that they're planning on conducting a methodical search. (Rather than just appointing Harriet Miers as the GM, for example.) Now, it's reasonable to have doubts about the wisdom of the Wilpons' ultimate choices. But for better or worse, we're stuck with Fred and Jeff. It's nice that they know they need to make a change; we can only hope that the changes are good ones. I think that they'll need to import a super genius (or get super lucky) in order for 2011 to be a contending season. But, barring any foolish moves in the next twelve months (I know, I know...) they'll have a lot of payroll flexibility going into the 2011-12 offseason, and if they have a smart team in place, 2012 could shape up to be a very good year.

TransMonk Sep 23 2010 10:29 AM Re: Ten Years

Yeah, I think it will get slightly worse before it gets better. 2010 had moments of hope for contending...I'm not sure 2011 will at all...or maybe that it should. It does seem apparent that the Wilpons have some sort of blueprint for the offseason. I'm already considering 2011 a rebuilding year in my mind even if the Mets' martketing department comes up with some stupid slogan about going for it all in order to sell tickets. I am very hopefull that 2012 will be a season to root for a championship once the new regime has a year under it's belt, the youngsters have time to improve and a bunch of money comes of the books.

MFS62 Sep 23 2010 10:34 AM Re: Ten Years

TransMonk wrote: I am very hopefull that 2012 will be a season to root for a championship once the new regime has a year under it's belt, the youngsters have time to improve and a bunch of money comes of the books. IIRC, 2011 is the year they'll have to start paying Bobby Bonilla (and maybe Mo Vaughn). Will those numbers count against the team salary, or are they being paid separately from an annuity-type account? Later

TransMonk Sep 23 2010 10:40 AM Re: Ten Years

Per this article, Bobby Bo starts earning $1.19 million per year on 07/01/11 until 2035. Yikes! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 98050.html

metirish Sep 23 2010 11:04 AM Re: Ten Years

Edgy DC wrote: I guess I should know this, but has anybody reported whether Minaya --- like Duquette before him --- has a clause that compels him to accept reassignment in order to keep earning his salary? Like Grim I read that in fact Minaya is not obligated to take up other duties if he is not going to be the GM. As I remember it the article noted that the assumption that he would stay with the org. is wrong and that fact could complicate matters. If Omar digs in the the Mets would need to fire him and eat that money.

Frayed Knot Sep 23 2010 01:19 PM Re: Ten Years

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think I read somewhere that his contract is for GM duties, and if the Mets remove him from that position he's not obligated to continue working for them. I don't know if that's true or not, though. I think most GM contracts would be like that. Duquette's wasn't (to his surprise as it turned out) but he was also promoted from within by folks who clearly weren't ready to take off his training wheels. I would be surprised if Omar, having come from outside and in a position to negotiate, was allowed to have his job description changed without his agreement. As for the Mets future, at least they seem to be going about with some kind of a plan, if what we've been reading is accurate. First they're going to hire a baseball overlord, who will determine who the GM will be. I don't know why the GM and the Baseball Overlord are two different positions, nor do I know which of the two would select the manager. But at least it seems that the Wilpons know an overhaul is necessary and that they're planning on conducting a methodical search. (Rather than just appointing Harriet Miers as the GM, for example.) Stan Kasten, currently Prez of the Nats and previously held similar jobs with the Braves and also in other sports, is rumored to be fed-up with low budgets in DC and may part company with them at the end of the season. Just sayin'.

bmfc1 Sep 23 2010 02:16 PM Re: Ten Years

"Stan Kasten, currently Prez of the Nats and previously held similar jobs with the Braves and also in other sports, is rumored to be fed-up with low budgets in DC and may part company with them at the end of the season." More than a rumor, he announced today that he is resigning at the end of the season.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2010 02:36 PM Re: Ten Years

New York native. "We certainly respect his decision to pursue other interests at the end of the regular season, but will continue to call upon him for his vast knowledge of the game, the league and the franchise. He will remain a friend and valued partner of the team and ownership group." It was not known what Kasten will do after leaving the Nationals. There have been reports over the past few years that he would work for the Blue Jays or Major League Baseball, but he has denied those reports. Kasten was also a successful GM with the Atlanta Hawks of the NBA. It was also not known who will replace Kasten in Washington. Kasten came to the Nationals after a successful run as president of the Braves. It was Kasten who hired Bobby Cox to be manager of the Braves and the club went on to win 14 straight division titles, five pennants and one World Series. Delegated all his bball decisions to Scheurholz with the Bravos. I'd like to see him come in here and hire Dominique Wilkins as Dunking Coach.

Fman99 Sep 23 2010 08:28 PM Re: Ten Years

TransMonk wrote: Per this article, Bobby Bo starts earning $1.19 million per year on 07/01/11 until 2035. Yikes! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 98050.html Good for Bobby Bo! You know how long he's been eating Saltines for dinner, waiting for his big paydays to kick back in.

Lefty Specialist Sep 24 2010 04:06 AM Re: Ten Years

It's pretty likely that they invested the annuity he's getting paid from with Bernie Madoff. The gifts that keep on giving, on a number of levels.