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
|
Yancy Street Gang Dec 08 2005 11:18 AM |
|
I don't see where Omar is quoted in the article.
|
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.
|
Frayed Knot Dec 08 2005 11:30 AM |
Nothing to lose except for draft picks in the case of Bernie.
|
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?
|
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 |
|
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!
|
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 |
|
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:
|
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.
|
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?
|
Elster88 Dec 13 2005 09:05 AM |
|||
Angry? No. Schanuzer? No, I think the dog I am most like is a Husky.
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.
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.
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.
|
Elster88 Dec 13 2005 10:04 AM |
|||||||
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.
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.
I don't see why this has to go to the red light. It's still talking baseball.
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.]
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.
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.
|
Elster88 Dec 14 2005 11:50 AM |
Maybe some time in the future.
|