Master Index of Archived Threads


Omar tries to make as little sense as possible

holychicken Dec 08 2005 11:14 AM

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051207&content_id=1278787&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym What? I mean. . .what? Please, someone, make sense of this.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 08 2005 11:18 AM

I don't see where Omar is quoted in the article. ]Mets looking at Bernie 12/08/2005 12:54 AM ET By Mark Feinsand / MLB.com DALLAS -- Bernie Williams' future with the Yankees is still an uncertainty, but the Bombers aren't the only New York team with an interest in the five-time All-Star. The Mets are interested in signing Williams as a backup outfielder, the same role that the Yankees are looking to fill with the 37-year-old. One high-ranking Mets official said that if Williams is willing to accept a contract significantly lower than the $12.3 million he earned in 2005, the club would be interested in bringing him across town from the Bronx to Queens. The Mets would probably offer Williams a one-year deal not worth more than $2 million. "Depending on the type of role Bernie would be willing to take on, I think he'd be a good fit for us," the Mets official said. "His leadership, his experience in New York, those are qualities that aren't easy to find." Williams would have a familiar face around him at Shea Stadium, as manager Willie Randolph was on the Yankees' coaching staff for most of Williams' career in the Bronx. The Mets have Carlos Beltran and Cliff Floyd penciled in for center and left field, respectively, while Xavier Nady and Victor Diaz are set to share time in right field. Williams would primarily serve as a pinch-hitter for the Mets, giving them an experienced switch-hitting bat off the bench. "If Bernie would be willing to come to Spring Training, grab a glove and get comfortable at all three positions, we could use a guy like him," the Mets official said. "He's still a good hitter. He could be very valuable to our team."

Centerfield Dec 08 2005 11:25 AM

I like the idea of signing older veterans for the bench. If they want to bring in Bernie or Sosa or anyone else and give them a shot in spring training, I'm all for it. Every once in a while, you might find that the older guys have just a little something left in the tank that can be useful in a limited role. And if not, no skin off our back.

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2005 11:30 AM

Nothing to lose except for draft picks in the case of Bernie. That's why shopping from the non-tendered list makes a lot more sense. I can't really see the role Bernie would play here anyway. I generally don't dive headfirst into conspiracy theories, but maybe this is just a ploy to get the Yanx to ramp up what they have to pay for him.

Edgy DC Dec 08 2005 11:35 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 08 2005 01:20 PM

Whoever that high-ranking official is --- and it's probably just Randolph saying nice things about an old buddy --- he's clearly speaking in the hypothetical.

Elster88 Dec 08 2005 11:38 AM

How could a reporter possibly start a rumor like this when he could risk his career and reputation? Have I beaten that line into the ground yet? Do I get the dead horse award?

metirish Dec 08 2005 11:38 AM

Williams should just take what the yankees offer(1 year $2m +) and finish out his great career.

Nymr83 Dec 08 2005 01:13 PM

Elster88 wrote: How could a reporter possibly start a rumor like this when he could risk his career and reputation? Have I beaten that line into the ground yet? Do I get the dead horse award? nope, keep it coming. someone still hasn't responded to the question you've asked them 3 or 4 times in that thread.

metsmarathon Dec 08 2005 01:35 PM

ew, yankee cooties! tho, i think of all yankees, i think of bernie as having the least yankee cooties of em all, tho i'm not sure of a good reason why. i'd have no problem with bernie coming here to fill out our outfield/bench on the super-cheap.

smg58 Dec 08 2005 09:03 PM

I could see the value of a switch-hitting utility outfielder, but not if it requires beating $2M, and certainly not if it requires a draft pick.

holychicken Dec 08 2005 09:40 PM

]I don't see where Omar is quoted in the article. Well, if we are going to be picky, I don't see where I said Omar said anything. ;)

silverdsl Dec 08 2005 09:55 PM

Take Bernie Williams please!

Elster88 Dec 12 2005 12:48 PM

I started a new thread for this post, but it really isn't worthy of it's own thread. I'm sticking it here because sometimes you get good things out of what seems like a horrible idea or your second and third choices: I found that thread that I was searching for: My point here is not that the Red Sox make dumb moves, just that they have had a good deal of luck to help them get where they are, as many other winners will have luck. And someone who switches allegiance and claims it's because the organization is much smarter needs a dose of reality. Condensed the thread: I like the Red Sox, but the idea that they are geniuses in putting a team together and are what every organization should aspire to is kind of silly. They are a good team, obviously, but it's not like their moves put the Mets to shame. (from a Sports Guy article in the middle of the 2004 WS, I added the bracketed text): You need a little luck to get this far. Consider the things that didn't happen for the Sox in the past 24 months: 1.) The A-Rod deal fell through; 2.) Millar's Japan deal fell through; 3.) The Expos told them that they didn't have enough to get Vazquez, so they turned to Plan B (Schilling); 4.) The Yankees trumped them for Contreras; 5.) Nomar turned down two different extensions in 2003; 6.) Anyone could have claimed [2004 WS MVP] Manny off waivers this winter; 7.) They almost traded D-Lowe for Loiaza before the Yankees trumped their bid; and 8.) They probably wouldn't have gotten Cabrera if Nomar hadn't sulked throughout that 13-inning game at Yankee Stadium, turning public sentiment against him just enough so they could eventually trade him without causing a riot. JUST LIKE THEO DREW IT UP! Added by another poster: Don't forget their signing of Jeremy Giambi in 2003 (.696 OPS), who was supposed to be their full-time DH until Ortiz (a front-office afterthought) took over the job. Or that they failed to lock up Pedro when they had the chance (what would their season have looked like this year with Petey on the hill instead of Wade Miller & Jeremy Gonzalez?). Or that Tito keeps playing a weak-hitting, poor defensive first baseman (.759 OPS in 433 AB) while Olerud (.858 OPS in 151 AB) and Petagine (.799 OPS and only 39 AB) languish on the bench. (Mientkiewicz--.735 OPS--and a good defender) Or that they clearly signed the wrong shortstop, locking up a .704 OPS man with 29 errors for four years and $40M. (K-Mat last year: .727 OPS & 23 errors, signed for 3 years & $20.1M ). Back to Elster: And let's not forget the David Wells signing. This slob get signed (and Pedro is turned loose because he is going downhill and too expensive?!?!), and this is the organization that puts the Mets to shame? Again....the Red Sox have a shiny WS trophy to their credit and are regular post-season attendees. How can I bash them? I'M NOT. Merely pointing out that their supposed genius may not be all that's it's cracked up to be, or that they may not be so far superior to other teams out there. Of course, I'm sure you'll all see my hidden agenda: To single out and direct my ire at anyone who dares to bash the Mets.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 12 2005 07:04 PM

Agreed. The Sox are a lucky, lucky organization that has miraculously overcome their consistent boneheaded decisions and lack of a coherent policy through sheer dumb luck, being in the right place at the right time, good fortune, happenstance, plus they caught a few good breaks. That's it. They could as easily have finished last as gotten into the playoffs the past few seasons. A couple of accidents, mishaps, tosses of the dice, and they'd be run out of baseball, probably. I don't see how they have the reputation that they do, Elster. If we had a few more loyal Mets fans like you to carry this banner of truth, I'm sure the whole world could be persuaded that your cause is just and deserving, but those nasty Sox fans plus the Communistic media that's only out to sell papers and to mislead the American public have tilted the playing field against us. I beg you to devote your every waking hour to this noble cause--if this means that you will die an early and unnoticed death as a result, that's a small sacrifice in the light of this holiest of truths. Expose this terrible conspiracy of the baseball standings, and show that the greatest teams are those at the bottom of the standings year after year, and keep exposing those frauds who think they'll pull the wool over our eyes by this cruel and unfair tactic of winning games, pennants and World's Championships. Godspeed! ON EDIT: I'm JESUS!

Elster88 Dec 13 2005 07:20 AM

Whatever. I figured that would be your response, but I was holding out hope that a point could be gotten across. Way to, per usual, ignore everything I was trying to say and just continue with your same old line. Really not a big surprise.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 13 2005 08:46 AM

Angry little schnauzer, aren't you? I'll be glad to discuss the Red Sox with you, but why don't we take it to a Red Sox board, huh? If I do much responding to you here (i.e., any responding) I'm in danger of being accused of "All-BS-agenda-all-the-time-boring-who-cares" regardless of who started the discussion. In general , however, wouldn't you agree that all teams make plenty of mistakes, but the good organizations have decent backup plans, budget for errors, tend to assess their errors quickly, etc? That's the real difference, though it may well please you to think that I believe the reason the Mets have been unsuccessful lately is that they alone make mistakes.

Elster88 Dec 13 2005 09:05 AM

Angry? No. Schanuzer? No, I think the dog I am most like is a Husky. ]I'll be glad to discuss the Red Sox with you, but why don't we take it to a Red Sox board, huh? Nah, I didn't want to discuss the Red Sox so much as point out that every team makes mistakes. In the case of the Red Sox, they tried to make mistakes like bringing over Vazquez, ARod, and Loaiza, like trying to get rid of Manny, and like trying to sign Garciaparra to 4yr/$16millionper contract that would have been an incredibly bad deal for them. And they did all this immediately prior to their first WS ring in 86 years. It's hard to look at moves like that and conclude that they are a vastly superior franchise. The real, not so hidden, reason that they have had their recent run is their payroll. Sure, they've spent it better than teams like, say, the Mets, but with the moves they lucked out on plus their budget I am not convinced that their "genius" is the reason behind their success. ]In general , however, wouldn't you agree that all teams make plenty of mistakes, but the good organizations have decent backup plans, budget for errors, tend to assess their errors quickly, etc? Yes. I could argue that the Red Sox are not much better in any of these areas then the Mets. Better, yes. Much better, no. But you're right, that's for the SoSH board, and you do have the W-L record as the trump argument. ]it may well please you to think that I believe the reason the Mets have been unsuccessful lately is that they alone make mistakes. Does it please me to think this way? Not particularly. I don't care much one way or the other. I don't spend as much time thinking about your motives as you seem to believe. Do I actually think this? Yes. Your main (and only?) message on this board of late is that the Mets are clueless. If they actually are clueless, which I am not willing to concede, they are not much more clueless than any other team that is out there. If you truly don't think that they alone make mistakes, why go to the extreme of switching fan-loyalty (a horrible thing to do) because they are such a horrible franchise? The point that I was trying to get across is that other teams make mistakes, too, including the Red Sox. And to become a Red Sox fan because they supposedly are vastly superior in baseball intelligence and at pleasing their fans smells bad. It smells of someone jumping bandwagons to the team that just won the World Series. On a side note, with that track record, it's hard to read your repetitive posts objectively. Especially when they have attention-craving, "look-at-me", retarded subject headers like "TOXIC DONT READ BLAH BLAH BLAH". But you don't seem to be doing anymore, and are back to posts about baseball with only the occasional barb against the Mets, which are very nice and fun to read (SC = zero). Believe it or not, it's more fun when there is someone with such an anti-Met POV to argue with. I like responding to the post directly above this one. The one three posts above this one, not so much.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 13 2005 09:36 AM

If you'd like to discuss this stuff rationally, I'm game. But, although you think it's retarded and attention-seeking, I want clear labelling of individual subjects so people know not to open threads of which they don't approve. I'll discuss the Sox gladly, but in an appropriate setting. I think the CPF has clearly told me that any Red Sox discussion I indulge myself in here will be met, sooner rather than later, with invective and name-calling, which I'd rather avoid. You attribute the Sox success to two things: Luck (which is a weak perennial explanation for success that I've already mocked sufficiently above) and payroll. Since you admit that the Mets have the same payroll available but the Sox have (through dumb luck?) spent it far more efficiently, I don't really get what you're claiming other than what I'm claiming: the Sox are much better at sniffing out clues than the Mets have been. A few more posts like your last, in fact, and I can just refer all Sox discussions to you, in the confidence that you'll make my point far more convincingly than I. You really have no idea how pathetic your defense of the Mets's wisdom sounds to an objective ear. Now, if you'd like to discuss whether switching loyalty is really "a horrible thing to do," I'll have that discussion, but why don't we go over the Red Light sub-forum, so I can continue my baseball-related posts here undisturbed? I don't mind talking this stuff over, if you really want to talk, and not heap your abuse on me. The charge of repetitiveness is also a weak one. I could defend myself by pointing out the great variety of subjects in which I've expressed interest over the years, but that isn't very persuasive, for some reason, and I don't know if "repetitiveness" doesn't simply mean that I have an unpopular opinion that I maintain with some consistency. I don't think the Mets are a well-run organization, and that belief is bound to come through in any number of posts. I read the charge of repetition as pressure to succumb to a more acceptable belief, which I don't feel inclined to do. Frankly, there's far more repetition of the complaint that I am repetitious, boring, long-winded, etc than there is of anyrthing else around here. Probably best to ignore such complaints completely. Arguing the point just adds fuel to the fire.

Elster88 Dec 13 2005 10:04 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: You attribute the Sox success to two things: Luck (which is a weak perennial explanation for success that I've already mocked sufficiently above) and payroll. Since you admit that the Mets have the same payroll available but the Sox have (through dumb luck?) spent it far more efficiently, Do I think it's all dumb luck? No. Is it a lot of dumb luck? Yes! Just look at my last couple of posts to understand why. Bret Sabermetric wrote: I don't really get what you're claiming other than what I'm claiming: the Sox are much better at sniffing out clues than the Mets have been. I quibble on the word "much". Bret Sabermetric wrote: A few more posts like your last, in fact, and I can just refer all Sox discussions to you, in the confidence that you'll make my point far more convincingly than I. You really have no idea how pathetic your defense of the Mets's wisdom sounds to an objective ear. I'm not sure what this means. Is my "defense" really a defense? Not really. What I'm saying is that all teams make boneheaded moves, the Red Sox just lucked out on what worked out for them. Bret Sabermetric wrote: Now, if you'd like to discuss whether switching loyalty is really "a horrible thing to do," I'll have that discussion, but why don't we go over the Red Light sub-forum, so I can continue my baseball-related posts here undisturbed? I don't see why this has to go to the red light. It's still talking baseball. Bret Sabermetric wrote: I don't mind talking this stuff over, if you really want to talk, and not heap your abuse on me. I'm not sure what you're seeing as abuse. I went over the top describing your "TOXIC" thread as retarded, but I really believed it was just a ploy for attention. That's a stupid thread header. Why not just say what's in the thread? People can still judge whether or not to open it if the content is in the header instead of "TOXIC DO NOT OPEN." I'm sure you believe, as I do, that an all-caps thread title like "TOXIC" is MUCH more likely to get read. If it wasn't a ploy for attention, then I guess what I said can be construed as abusive. Where's the other abuse? I was called out by rpackrat just last week for being a prick, so I'm trying modify my behavior. That should also be a clue that I'm not showing my asshole-side just to you. In fact, I thought I treated you as well or better than most around here do. As I said, an opposing point of view keeps things interesting. [Hmmm maybe this paragraph and the ones below belong in the Red Light. Mods, let me know.] Bret Sabermetric wrote: The charge of repetitiveness is also a weak one. I could defend myself by pointing out the great variety of subjects in which I've expressed interest over the years, but that isn't very persuasive, for some reason, and I don't know if "repetitiveness" doesn't simply mean that I have an unpopular opinion that I maintain with some consistency. It's not your opinion that makes me say you are repetitive, I tend to get on everyone's case for being overly repetitive. I'll concede it's more likely that you get complaints because your Met-related opinions are not generally shared, but I don't think you are unfairly singled out. Bret Sabermetric wrote: I don't think the Mets are a well-run organization, and that belief is bound to come through in any number of posts. I read the charge of repetition as pressure to succumb to a more acceptable belief Not at all, at least not from me. I'm not trying to get you to think the Mets are a perfectly run organization. I don't believe that myself, as you obviously inferred from my posts. I just have a natural response to look down on people who switch loyalties casually. (A personal flaw) And I tend to find that not a lot of people switch their loyaties, um, un-casually. Those people that do switch are usually the ones who don't really give a crap about baseball, only root for a winner, and only see games live when they go to World Series games because they are starring in a major motion picture or because Daddy gave them his corporate seats so they can brag to their friends. This obviously doesn't apply to you, which makes your switch more puzzling to me. Again, I don't really care all that much that you jumped ships. I just will argue to my death that the Red Sox are not such a competent organization as to put the Mets to shame and to cause the switching of bandwagons. Nor are the Mets so horrible as to inspire the above.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 11:19 AM

Are we all done here, Bret?

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 11:36 AM

I guess. I actually wrote you out a lengthy response, but decided not to post it, because I thought it would be read generally (not necessarily by you) as long-winded, self-indulgent BS kind of BS, and I'm trying to avoid both wasting my time and getting people all fired up at me. The questions are interesting to me of why people choose to become fans of a team, if that team can act in a way that permits a loyal fan to jump overboard honorably, why people condone behavior in their fellow fans that they take offense at from fans of other teams, whether one can follow a team closely but not wish them well, whether "My Team Right or Wrong" is virtuous or vicious, and several other questions, but I haven't been able to discuss these issues without stirring up a potful of shit in the past, and am not hopeful of bneing able to raise them at this time, either.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 11:50 AM

Maybe some time in the future.