Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


1993: The year the Mets broke

metirish
Aug 09 2013 08:56 AM

Excellent long read here on the 1993 Mets by Matthew Callan. Worth following on Twitter too @scratchbomb

1993: The year the Mets broke
By Matthew Callan ? @scratchbomb on Aug 9 2013, 10:00am



This year marks the 20th anniversary of the 1993 Mets, a monstrous team that defined the franchise's course and reputation for the next two decades.


The Mets do not commemorate themselves well. Consider that this year marked the 40th anniversary of the 1973 team that went from last to first at the end of the season, beat the heavily favored Cincinnati Reds in the NLCS, and battled the powerhouse Oakland A's to a seventh game of the World Series. It is one of the signal events in Mets history, and one of the most remarkable comeback stories in baseball history. It birthed one of the greatest Yogi Berra-isms of all time ("It ain't over 'til it's over") as well as the franchise-defining battle cry of YA GOTTA BELIEVE!

It was celebrated with a set of playing cards.

This year marks the another round-number anniversary of a watershed moment in Mets history that I do not expect the team to commemorate. In fact, I'm sure anyone who remembers this event would prefer to keep it tucked far, far away from where memory can touch. And yet, it is important to take time to mark this occasion. Like the 1973 team, this squad defined the ones that came after it. In this case, however, the definition is not printable.

I am speaking of the worst team—if not in record, then spiritually—in franchise history. I am speaking of the 1993 Mets.

* * *

In December of 1986, mere weeks after the Mets had won the World Series, Kevin Mitchell was shipped to San Diego for Kevin McReynolds. Mitchell would go on to win an MVP award for the Giants in 1989. McReynolds would enjoy a few good seasons in a Mets uniform, but prove himself ill-suited for the high pressure demands of playing in New York, a city of which he said, "It's almost like people are miserable, and they want to bring you down to their level."

When the story of The Fall Of The Mets is told, it often begins with the Dodgers' improbable victory over them in the 1988 NLCS. To me, the Kevin Mitchell trade is an even more unsettling omen of what was to come. Any team can beat any other team in a 7-game series, but the Kevin Mitchell trade signaled a sea change in the organization's thinking.

The Mets' success in the 1980s was largely predicated largely on player development, a slow, unglamorous process. When hired in 1980, general manager Frank Cashen warned ownership it would take a good five years to undo the damage of the post-Seaver-trade years. He was given that five years, and relevance returned. But once they reached the top of the mountain, the Mets decided to take a more Steinbrennerian path, even though the Yankees of that era provided ample evidence that spending money on "names" guaranteed nothing.

The Mets did not immediately jump into free agency, preferring instead to trade away homegrown players for more "established" fare. Lenny Dykstra and Roger McDowell were sent to Philadelphia for Juan Samuel (a second baseman asked to fill the centerfield hole left by Dykstra). A quartet including Rick Aguilera and Kevin Tapani was traded to Minnesota for Frank Viola. Lefty closer Randy Myers was exchanged for another lefty closer, John Franco.

With exception of Franco, none of the players they acquired in such deals stayed in New York for long, while the players they sent packing almost invariably led their new teams to the playoffs. The more products of their farm system were shipped elsewhere, the more the Mets needed to look for "established" players on other teams' rosters, resulting in a vicious cycle destined to end badly.

Even so, the franchise's downfall came quicker and played out far more brutally than it should have. This happened because the the players who comprised the Mets' Franken-team chafed at the media environment that surrounded them. They responded by acting out in increasingly immature ways, until churlishness crossed over into criminal acts. McReynolds was the first example, but his mild offenses would pale in comparison to those of the men who succeeded him.

The poor roster judgment extended into the front office. Assistant GM Joe McIlvaine had been all but promised the GM position upon Frank Cashen's retirement. But with Cashen still at the reins and no official succession plan in place, McIlvaine tired of waiting and took the GM post in San Diego after the 1990 season. The move stunned the Mets and left Al Harazin as Cashen's sole lieutenant. Prior to McIlvaine's departure, Harazin had dealt strictly with the business side of the team's operations. Despite the fact that co-owner Fred Wilpon characterized Harazin's depth of baseball knowledge as "dangerously shallow," Harazin became Cashen's heir apparent by default.

What Harazin lacked in baseball acumen, he hoped to make up for with spending power. After eschewing free agency since the penny-pinching days of M. Donald Grant, the Mets suddenly jumped in head first. Harazin succeeded in lobbying Cashen to sign ex-Cardinals speedster Vince Coleman to a 4-year $11.95 million contract before the 1991 season.


The spending ramped up when Harazin took over the GM chair from Cashen in 1992. He inked future Hall of Famer Eddie Murray and perennial All Star Bobby Bonilla to pricey deals, and also traded for the hefty contract of former Cy Young Award winner Bret Saberhagen.

These moves made the Mets a chic pick to return to their former glory, but the 1992 season was doomed by injuries. Saberhagen was limited to 15 starts, closer John Franco struggled all year before he was shut down at the end of August, and Coleman missed more than half the season. Even when in the lineup, Coleman proved troublesome. He instigated a shoving match with his manager that resulted in a two-game suspension, and blamed his sudden loss of basestealing prowess on the Shea Stadium infield.

Bobby Bonilla stayed healthier than most but became emblematic of the problem with these new Mets. His antagonistic relationship with the media began with his first press conference upon signing with the team. Anticipating a rude welcome before he'd even donned a Mets uniform, he promised the writers, "You guys won't be able to knock the smile off my face." He then proceeded to give them every reason to try.

In his first year in Flushing, the outfielder batted a modest .249 with just 19 home runs and did not react well to being treated poorly by the Shea boo birds. Bonilla took to wearing earplugs on the field so he wouldn't hear the taunts, and inspired more jeers when he lobbied the official scorer to take away errors from his record. Bonilla's whining grated on a public that expected better of the superstar who grew up in the city and should have been prepared for what playing there meant. Cartoonists depicted him wearing diapers.

Off the field, 1992 was tarnished by a series of sordid accusations. First, a trio of players (Coleman, Doc Gooden, Darryl Boston) were accused of raping a woman at the Mets' spring training facilities the previous year. Then, the tabloids had a field day with bizarre rumors that David Cone had lured women into the Shea Stadium bullpen with promises of autographed baseballs in order to masturbate in front of them. In an unrelated incident, Cone was also accused of making death threats against a group of women at Shea.

As ugly as these incidents were, the team's reaction to them was worse. The Mets could have done some soul searching about their selection of personnel, or attempted to discipline and correct such (alleged) behavior. Instead, the Mets decided the real villains were the media.

It's difficult for a modern mind to comprehend how a baseball player in 1993, who plied his trade in a world with no internet or camera phones and a far less powerful ESPN, could see the sports media as relentless. However, there was a definite sense among athletes of this era that the traditional beat writer—a scribe who'd drink with the players and keep their indiscretions quiet—had given way to reporters more in the mold of the new glut of sleazy celebrity "news" shows like Inside Edition, Hard Copy, and A Current Affair.

The truth of that is highly debatable, but players of the time certainly believed it, and the Mets did more than most. An air of paranoia pervaded their clubhouse, convincing its members that every person who entered with a mic in his/her hand was out to get them. In the face of such a "threat," players and management alike decided the best defense was a good offense, and attacked the press at every opportunity.

Some blamed this shift in outlook on Murrary, who brought a virulent hatred of the press with him from Baltimore. Others thought the Mets still smarted from the memory of Bud Harrelson, the 1969 Mets' scrappy shortstop who withered under backpage criticism and lost his managerial post near the end of the 1991 season. Still others thought the leering David Cone headlines poisoned the Mets' feeling toward the scribes who covered them. It may have been poisoned long before that by the media circuses that sprung up around Doc Gooden's several falls from grace and Darryl Strawberry's intramural feuds in the late 1980s.

Whatever the seed, it was watered Harrelson's replacement, Jeff Torgborg. The new manager obsessed over how his team was perceived in the papers, to the point that he called constant team meetings on the subject, warning his players to pay the writers no mind. Pitcher Pete Schourek responded, "If we're not supposed to be worried about the media, why are we having all these meetings about the media?" Torborg's preoccupation with the press was so desperate that Cone dubbed him "Oliver North."

Torborg also miscalculated by attempting to impose clean living on his players. His immediate predecessors (Harrelson and Davey Johnson) had "boys will be boys" attitudes when it came to postgame jockish misbehavior. Torborg, on the other hand, enforced a ban on beer drinking during team flights. To the Mets of this era, it was an article of faith that their '80s glory days were powered by beer-and-coke-fueled mayhem. (See The Bad Guys Won for all the gory details.)

In retrospect, it's clear that the Mets' hard partying ways did more to kill a dynasty than create one. At the time, however, they firmly believed otherwise, and Torborg's teetotaling edicts were seen as a conspiracy to rob these athletes of their manly devil-may-care essence. Cone, when traded away to Toronto at the 1992 deadline, sighed, "The day of the arrogant Mets is over." He pointed to Torborg's goody-two-shoes beer ban as a sign of weakness, cringing at the sight of grown men sneaking sips of beer while skip had his back turned.

* * *

Despite the ugliness of 1992, many observers were willing to give the Mets a mulligan due to the spate of injuries they suffered that year. The Mets tried to underscore a fresh start with a uniform makeover. For the first time, their jerseys featured a swoosh/tail beneath "Mets" and "New York" on their home and away togs, respectively. The fashion statement fell with a thud, and few fans now even remember the brief swoosh experiment, which lasted through the strike-shortened 1994 season.

Sartorial opinions aside, surely a team with a healthy Bonilla, Saberhagen, Coleman, and Murray would compete. Pirates manager Jim Leyland, who'd just seen his best players bolt in free agency (Bonilla included), picked them to win the NL East. Others weren't so sure. Tigers skipper Sparky Anderson snorted, "The Mets are a myth."

Before too long, the Mets would wish they were a myth, but their monstrosity was all too real.

The 1993 Mets won their first two games at home against the expansion Colorado Rockies. They defeated the Rockies two in a row a week later, then beat the Reds in back-to-back games on April 16 and 17. They would not win consecutive games again until the end of June. Over that stretch, they did not so much play baseball as execute daily nine-man reenactments of Faces of Death with bats and gloves. And they were just getting started.

A mere four games into the season, Bonilla had his first meltdown. He confronted beat writer Bob Klapisch, who had authored the soon-to-be-published book about the mess of 1992, The Worst Team Money Could Buy. Excerpts of the book had just appeared in the Daily News, and Bonilla was not pleased with his portrayal therein. After calling Klapisch a homophobic slur, Bonilla promised the writer, "I'll show you the Bronx," then smacked away a microphone belonging to a camera crew that captured the whole thing on tape.

Bonilla later tried to distinguish between attacking one member of the media and attacking the media as a whole. In doing so, he simply underscored the team's contemptuous view of the press. "This team as a whole, we feel [Klapisch] abused his privilege, period, and that's all we have to say," Bonilla grumbled, quickly adding, "We're not taking this out on everyone else in the media."

On April 26, Doc Gooden was scratched from a start after, according to the Mets, getting "bumped" while in the clubhouse. It was soon revealed the "bump" was caused by Coleman, who was practicing his golf swing in the locker room and hit Gooden in the shoulder blade with his 9-iron. Rather than apologize for the clumsy coverup attempt, Harazin harrumphed that his only mistake was "not doing a better job of keeping it out of the papers." When reporters tried to grill Coleman in the clubhouse the next day, they were bum rushed toward the exit by a crew consisting of Franco, Bonilla, and Murray.

By May 17, Sports Illustrated was already referring to the Mets as "Battle-weary" and characterizing a four-game series against the brand-new Florida Marlins as having "the urgency of a pennant race." The Mets proceeded to split that series and embarrass themselves in many other ways. In the second Florida game, a 4-2 loss, Coleman misplayed an easy fly ball and booted a grounder. In the same contest, Bonilla admired what he thought was a game-tying homer and jogged leisurely around the bases, only to see the ball caught at the warning track. When reprimanded by third base coach Mike Cubbage, Bonilla growled, "Don't show me up on the field." Bonilla carried the argument continued into the dugout, hurling obscenities at Cubbage the whole time.

Already tired of Bonilla's act, fans took to booing him not after every strikeout, but after every strike, period. Some put paper bags over their head when he strode to the plate. Others booed a credit card commercial featuring Torborg when the team dared play it on DiamondVision.

By May 19, the Mets were 13-25, only one game better than the pace of the dreadful 1962 team. The big difference was that the 1962 Mets were a lovable bunch, while the 1993 squad was thoroughly hateable. Torborg was let go and replaced with Dallas Green. Tthe former Phillies manager was regarded as a "drill sergeant" type who would presumably kick posteriors until the Mets shaped up. The team's play would not improve, however, and Green could do little to clear the toxic atmosphere of the Mets clubhouse.

A few weeks after Torborg's dismissal, Harazin was gone as well. Ownership had realized their error in giving him the GM seat and attempted to move him back into a strictly business role, but Harazin chose to resign instead. McIlvaine, who'd resigned his own post in San Diego after clashing with management there, returned to take the vacated post he should have received in the first place. By that point, McIlvaine's appointment, just like Green's, was little more than deck chair rearrangement on the Titanic.

* * *

Anthony Young, a hefty righthander, began 1992 as a starter. A string of defeats punched his ticket out of the rotation, though he filled the closer's role by default during John Franco's injuries. Young garnered 15 saves in Franco's absence that season, but no victories. Between starting and relieving, Young lost his last 14 decisions of the 1992 campaign.

Young began 1993 in the bullpen and continued to rack up losses. When Green took the helm, he was reinserted into the rotation, but his luck did not change. Still more losses ensued, each more mystifying than the last. Typical of his luck: An outing on June 17 in Pittsburgh, when he found he was allergic to the drying agent groundskeepers spread on the mound. Eyes swollen and teary, he toughed his way through seven innings, but still lost, 5-2.


On June 22, Young lost to the Expos, 6-3, as his teammates committed a whopping four errors behind him, resulting in three unearned runs. Their defense noticeably improved once Young left the game, leading many to believe the poor man was hexed. "When he goes out there, the whole team feels it," marveled reliever Jeff Innis. "It's intense." It was his 23rd consecutive defeat, tying the all-time mark of the formerly forgotten Cliff Curtis, who lost 23 straight in 1910-11 for the Boston Braves.

One start later, Young shattered Curtis's record with a 5-3 loss to the Cardinals. Not content with breaking the mark by one loss, Young kept right on losing. Then he was returned to the bullpen, where he continued to lose some more. Various psychics offered assistance, including a séance with the departed Curtis. Well-wishers sent in good luck charms by the truckload. Fans who'd been booing Coleman, Bonilla, and Murray all season cheered Young in pregame intros, hoping to extend good vibes his way. Nothing helped.

Before it was all over, Young lost 27 games in a row. He nearly lost number 28 on July 28, before a rare Mets rally in the bottom of the ninth turned a loss into a vulture win. In "achieving" this feat, and facing his fate with stoic resignation, Young garnered the 1993 Mets its one shred of sympathy. The New York Times declared him "A Noble Loser" ("Mr. Young endures all this with remarkable dignity..."), while SI opined, "With all the talk these days about role models in sports, here's an athlete to whom we can relate."

The only Met anyone could stand was a man who lost quietly.

* * *

The Anthony Young saga brought a tiny bit of goodwill to a team in desperate need of some. It also brought more reporters into the clubhouse, which was the last thing the Mets wanted. On July 7, as the press huddled around Young's locker, an anonymous player tossed a lit firecracker behind them. No one was hurt, but the mystery Met kept his identity hidden for three weeks, when Bret Saberhagen defiantly confessed. "It was a practical joke," he snorted. "I wanted to get people's attention. There are always tons of reporters here when something bad is happening. I don't like a lot of them."

When asked if he'd been disciplined by the team, Saberhagen all but laughed in his questioner's face. "What are they going to do, fine me?" It was as if the Mets' teacher was on leave, and they delighted in torturing a series of overmatched substitutes.

Saberhagen's tone was much different a few weeks later, when he confessed to "accidentally" spraying a group of reporters with bleach from a squirt gun. Suddenly, the pitcher was apologetic and accommodating to the press he swore he didn't intend to injure. The shift was probably due to an incident that occurred since then, which had turned the Mets season from an ugly farce to a monstrous one.

On July 24, after a game at Dodger Stadium, Vince Coleman planned to attend a barbecue at Eric Davis's house. He left the stadium, rebuffed a crowd of autograph seekers, and went to pregame for the party with Davis in the Dodger's Jeep Cherokee. While the Jeep was parked and fans still stood nearby, Coleman tossed some kind of explosive in their general direction. The local DA's office later compared it to "a quarter-stick of dynamite."

The ensuing explosion injured three fans, including a two-year-old girl, who suffered corneal lacerations. Despite the injuries, no one seemed to take it too seriously at first—least of all Coleman, who shooed reporters away from his locker the next day with a profanity-filled rant. The Mets took 72 hours to respond officially, labeling Coleman's acts as "off-field activities" that were "regrettable and reprehensible." Bud Selig (still referred to as "de facto commissioner" by Sports Illustrated) took 5 days to issue a tepid statement about "reported incidents involving New York Mets players."

Not even the supposed drill sergeant, Dallas Green, brought the hammer down on Coleman until he had no choice. Green inserted Coleman into his lineup for three games after the firecracker horror before public outcry forced a benching. The manager—having acquired his players' paranoia by osmosis—pinned the blame for the benching squarely on the press. "I made the decision based on your activities," he said, wagging his finger at reporters. "It's difficult for any athlete to go through something like this and perform up to his capabilities."

Contrition only appeared when Coleman was hit with felony charges that carried a prison sentence of up to three years. He called a press conference to beg forgiveness (with his wife and kids in tow for maximum effect), volunteered to clean up after recent fires in Malibu as part of his community service, and made sure to be photographed barbecuing for local firemen. His eventual punishment would be a one-year suspended sentence, plus a civil suit settled for an undisclosed amount.

That was not quite good enough for ownership. Since purchasing the team with Nelson Doubleday in 1980, Fred Wilpon had maintained a relatively low profile, his name in the papers hardly at all, especially when compared to his counterpart in the Bronx. The Coleman incident changed all that. On August 24, he called his first ever team meeting and chewed out his employees, saying they had embarrassed the Mets and the city of New York. "You should feel privileged to be able to play baseball in New York," he told them. "If you don't feel that way and you want out, let us know. We'll get you the hell out of here."

Wilpon then called a press conference to inform the gathered media that the pyromaniac outfielder would never play for the Mets again. It didn't matter that Coleman was owed $3 million the next year. It also didn't matter that (oops) Wilpon neglected to discuss this with anyone in the front office beforehand. "I reached a point where I had to say enough is enough," Wilpon said, and that was that.

The Mets had completed their transition from worldbeaters to laughingstock, appearances in the playoffs exchanged for appearances in late night monologues. The Mets quite literally became a punchline, leaned on by comedians of the age as often as Amy Fisher or Pee Wee Herman. Comparing them to another tabloid punching bag, Tom Verducci declared the Mets "baseball's Buttafuocos." David Letterman, who'd just joined CBS to pit his Late Show against The Tonight Show, was particularly fond of raking the Mets across the coals.

The final indignity came on September 8, when Houston pitcher Darryl Kile no-hit the Mets at the Astrodome. Kile allowed just one baserunner on a walk and retired the last 17 batters he faced. A local ABC anchor wondered, "Should it really be considered a no hitter? It did come against the Mets."

In the season's final week, the Mets suddenly acquired a sense of dignity and managed to win their last six games in a row. They still finished an abysmal 59-103, more than bad enough for last place, a full 5 games behind the expansion Marlins.

* * *

Painful though it might be, the 1993 Mets should be remembered, because the team itself failed to remember them, to its detriment.

When the decade began, the Mets still "owned the town," drawing 2.73 million fans to Shea in 1990. In contrast, the Yankees struggled to break 2 million in attendance that year, then fell below that mark for the next few seasons. Once the Mets became a joke (and an unfunny one at that), the tide began to turn. It helped that the "lifetime ban" posed against Steinbrenner in 1990 allowed the Yankees' front office to function normally for the first time in decades. With a mixture of homegrown talent and judicious free agent pickups, the Yanks began to win again. They surpassed the Mets in attendance in 1993 and have never trailed since.

The Mets spent the mid-1990s trying to revert to their old ways, but McIlvaine's development-centric approach was doomed by a series of high profile prospect failures. First, the flameout of the over-hyped Generation K, three young fireballers who were supposed to lead the Mets to the promised land, only to struggle with injury and ineffectiveness instead. Only one of them, Jason Isringhausen, would enjoy a lengthy major league career, and he would enjoy it away from New York.

Then there was Ryan Jaroncyk, a "can't miss" first round pick who found a way to miss by quitting the game altogether in 1997. Jaroncyk had come to realize he'd never liked baseball to begin with. "I always thought it was boring," he admitted upon retiring from the game at the tender age of 20.

An ownership dominated more and more by the voice of Fred Wilpon grew impatient. Like some of his former employees, he too became obsessed with the press, but in a different way: He desperately wanted to get back in their good graces. He longed to recapture the days when the Mets were the city's great sports love. But by the mid-90s, the Mets couldn't buy a backpage, and Wilpon couldn't see how slowly developing prospects (some of whom may never make it all) would solve that problem.

Wilpon dismissed McIlvaine midseason in 1997. He was replaced by Steve Phillips. (For those who enjoy irony, McIlvaine had drafted Phillips for the Mets in the early 1980s.) The new GM condescendingly referred to the team he inherited as "a good little team with good little players" and set about making it bigger. It was a viewpoint that reflected Wilpon's quest to both win back fans and win the backpages away from the ascendant Yankees. Meanwhile, Wilpon set about wresting total ownership of the team from Doubleday, assuring there would be no dissenting voices to object.

The press, forgetting 1993 altogether, praised Phillips for thinking and spending big, like a New York team should. His big splashes worked (Al Leiter, Mike Piazza, Robin Ventura) until they didn't (Mo Vaughn, Roberto Alomar). When they didn't, Phillips had no other tricks up his sleeve, and he was dismissed as unceremoniously as his predecessor.

The cycle began anew in 2005, as yet another GM (Omar Minaya) tried to win over press and fans with flashy signings. Once again, the moves worked wonders until age and injuries exposed the pitfalls of short-term thinking. Only this time, the rebuilding process was hampered by the Bernie Madoff Affair, which drained the team's coffers. Buying their way back into contention was no longer an option.

We have the 1993 Mets to thank for the dreadful Mets of 2009 to the present. Post-Harazin front offices failed to learn from their example and tried to build their teams in very 1993-ish ways. The results were less monstrous but no more successful on the field. None led to any kind of long-term success.

We have the 1993 Mets to thank (in part) for the Yankees' "ownership" of tri-state baseball loyalties. Had the Mets stayed relevant over that stretch, perhaps they would have kept pace with their crosstown rivals in the hearts and minds of New Yorkers.

One could also argue we have to thank the 1993 Mets for Fred Wilpon's increased influence on, and eventual sole ownership of, the team. Before 1993, he kept a low profile. The hideousness of that squad spurred him to take a more active role. It's hard to argue that, in aggregate, this has been to the benefit of the Mets as a franchise.

We certainly have the 1993 Mets to thank for the stream of LOLMETS that runs through sports media. Before then, the Mets had made themselves synonymous with success. (No, really!) Then, they managed to turn a team packed with All Stars into one of the most despicable teams ever. After 1993, everything the team has done is suffused with the undercurrent of How are they gonna mess this up?

Everything the Mets are now, they owe to 1993. Take some time to remember them today and give them a hand. Or perhaps just a finger.




http://www.amazinavenue.com/2013/8/9/45 ... mets-broke

metirish
Aug 09 2013 09:18 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

We have the 1993 Mets to thank for the dreadful Mets of 2009 to the present. Post-Harazin front offices failed to learn from their example and tried to build their teams in very 1993-ish ways. The results were less monstrous but no more successful on the field. None led to any kind of long-term success.



Not sure about that ....

metirish
Aug 09 2013 09:26 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Ryan Jaroncyk retiring at 20 intrigues me , you guys remember this "can't miss" kid?, searches on google show he may now be some sort of minister or a libertarian of note...quit because he simply didn't like baseball, played to please his parents...

Frayed Knot
Aug 09 2013 09:41 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 09 2013 11:29 AM

He wasn't a "can't miss" anymore than any mid-1st rounder is a "can't miss". Fan/writer propensity for putting that label on every young player they've ever heard of more than once is as inaccurate as it is annoying.

Story on Jaroncyk IIRC (I haven't read the above piece yet so maybe this is mentioned) was that, barely two years into his career, he simply decided he no longer liked baseball and claimed he had only been playing all along because he was pushed into it by his father. But by that point his parents had divorced so he simply up and quit taking his near $1 million bonus with him.
He briefly came back with another org a year or so later* but never got above A-ball with them either and soon gave it up again.
* looking it up - the Dodgers two seasons later

I remember there being a NYTimes article on him a short time after he quit (maybe those who know how to find that sort of stuff can come up with it) but there simply wasn't as much attention paid by the public to prospects back in that pre-internet/pre-fantasy days (especially in New York) so the whole deal wasn't that big a public story.

Ashie62
Aug 09 2013 10:16 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Wasn't this team called "the worst team money could buy"?

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 10:25 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

The opening paragraph kinda tells me where I'm going to be going.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 09 2013 10:32 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

The '92 team was WTMCB, according to Klapisch and Harper, but they fired too soon.

I do think there are some patterns to the struggle of the franchise since the 86ers broke up. They have made the same mistakes twice (or thrice), and often its been driven by the need to be perceived as doing the right thing, moreso than necessarily doing the right thing. I think sometimes the Wilpons don't or can't make that distinction.

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 10:37 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

The re-arming of 1992-993 was very similar 2002-2003 in motivation, execution, and results. I'm very gratified that they didn't (indeed, couldn't) make the same play in 2012-2013, and that Sandy seems to have teflon skin in the face of the same sort of fan criticism that helped drive those two turnovers.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 09 2013 11:16 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Another reason to finish in 2nd place if at all possible.

SteveJRogers
Aug 09 2013 11:27 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Another reason to finish in 2nd place if at all possible.


No. There is no reason to finish with a lower draft pick. Especially in the mid-first round hell.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 09 2013 11:32 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Oh STFU Rogers and go cheer on your boyfriend Arod. Your point is not only debatable (really, let's fuck up on purpose so as to make the difference between a 15th or 16th draft pick. Really?) and completely out of context of this discussion other than it being an extreme example of the kind of doofus-advocated sentiment referred to in previous posts.

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 11:33 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

I like the likening to the middle of the first round to "hell."

That's a massive perspective rupture right there.

SteveJRogers
Aug 09 2013 11:37 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Well, aspiring to that level of mediocrity pretty much has led to a lot of the Mets rather quagmire-esque seasons of false hopes and cock teases.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 09 2013 11:38 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

I'd argue you're wrong about that too.

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 11:52 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

SteveJRogers wrote:
Well, aspiring to that level of mediocrity pretty much has led to a lot of the Mets rather quagmire-esque seasons of false hopes and cock teases.

The road to Heaven goes through Purgatory, although there might be some "Hell"-ish draft positions to contend with.

G-Fafif
Aug 09 2013 11:55 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Good article from a consistently good writer. I second Irish's sentiment on @Scratchbomb.

1993's legacy of SNAFU still haunts the Mets externally and internally, leaving a mark that, however faint to the naked eye, won't completely fade until they win another World Series. It was the losing without the lovability, the bargain-basement results wrought at full retail markup. It was a transcendent LOLMets explosion that set a precedent wherein it would become second-nature to expect that if something could go wrong with the Mets, it would go wrong with the Mets. The pair of successful eras that eventually transpired after 1993 were never quite enough to erase the stigma of an organization that suffered at its core from hubris and incompetence. And it certainly didn't help that the Mets were still digging out from 1993's emotional and competitive wreckage when the MFYs decided to construct yet another dynasty right next door.

metsmarathon
Aug 09 2013 12:09 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

were the 1992/3 and 2002/3 teams really all that similar in terms of philosophy of construction?

sure, both teams featured players wh o were brought in and who massively underperformed, but the story of the 1993 mets is really of a bad, bad mix of personalities, and an inability of management to manage them. sure, the players tehmselves were bad guys, but were the contracts for murray and bonilla and (ok coleman was bad, but that's really more true when looking at it with a sabermetric eye) really out of line? were the trades for saberhagen and fernandez really so ill-conceived? the moves simply didn't, didn't work, and the younguns faltered mightily.

the 2002/3 mets were underscored by the mistake of mo vaughn, who himself was preceded by the mistake of kevin appier. the mistake of the 2002/3 mets was a mistake of thinking that money and money alone could build a winner, and that simply by spending money on players, results would follow. the 1993 mets were not built around aging former stars making far too much money, like the 2002/3 mets were.

the common thread is surely spending money on the wrong players, but the reasons those players were wrong is, i think, very different. i guess hte other common thread was not reacting properly to the red flags thrown up in the first of the two disastrous seasons (1992 and 2002, respectively), but in teh latter case, there was little that really could be done, short of eating the awful awful contracts already given out. though, signing tom glavine sure as hell wasn't the answer, either.

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 12:20 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

metsmarathon wrote:
the common thread is surely spending money on the wrong players, but the reasons those players were wrong is, i think, very different.

How do you mean?

metsmarathon
Aug 09 2013 01:00 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

the 1992/3 mets were a disaster primarily because of the chemistry of the bunch. i think that if those same players had gone, separately, to different teams, they would likely have performed far better. but the combination of that group in a new york clubhouse under jeff torborg led to a very very toxic atmosphere which prevented almost all of them from performing at an expected level.

the 2002/3 mets were not a disaster because of the chemistry of the bunch. they were a disaster because of the mismatch between the reasonable expectations to be made of tehir expected performance, an inability to adequately measure the expected performance of those players, and the level of pay given to those players. also, because robbie alomar.

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 01:38 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

No offense, but I"m not sure I buy that chemistry malarkey. If it's true of one, it's true of another.

Randolph got hurt because he got hurt, not because of bad chemo. Tony Fernandez slumped because he slumped. HoJo's back going out had nothing to do with lockering next to Eddie Murray instead of Keith Hernandez. He went from a league-leading 38 homers in 1991 to seven each of the next two seasons.

Similarly Roberto Alomar fell off the table and never said, "It's these damn TEAMMATES driving me CRAZY!" Mo Vaughn was enormous and his inablity to be an All-Star again after a season off should have been surprising to nobody. The dumbness of losing Mike Hampton to Colorado and going out and paying top dollar to Kevin Appier was a dumb move, but more doomed than losing Darryl Strawberry and opening the bank for Vince Coleman? I don't think so.

Many people blamed chemistry for the failure of the early-aughts Mets. Rey Sanchez giving haircuts during the game. Cedeno pissing off Alomar by displaying his rookie card. Franco and Leiter (and then Glavine, of all fucking people) being too close to management and influencing personnel decisions.

Howe was seen as ineffectual in the same way Harrelson and Cubbage were.

Chemistry, shmemistry. Both times, their talent had seemingly peaked, they panicked, and tried to Frankenstein a team together. Both times.

Benjamin Grimm
Aug 09 2013 01:48 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Yes, but why does that approach so frequently fail? I can't think of many specific examples right now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the same thing happen with other teams. This year's Blue Jays, perhaps. Why is it that adding three or four all-stars doesn't make your team better? My best guess is that it's because generally these star players you add are past their 30th birthday, and by then there's a greater chance that they're in decline.

But Vince Coleman was only 30 in 1992. Bret Saberhagen was 28. Bobby Bonilla was 29. Eddie Murray was 36 and Willie Randolph was 37.

In 2003, Tom Glavine was 37, Roberto Alomar was 35, Mo Vaughn was 35, and Cliff Floyd was 30.

I would say that it wasn't unreasonable to think that the 1992/93 group should have improved the team. Obviously, it didn't.

metsguyinmichigan
Aug 09 2013 01:54 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

We're missing the easy answer. The 1993 team was disastrous because the team tampered with the classic uniform design. You can add stripes -- or take them away --and mess with the basic jersey color. But adding the tail under Mets was a karmic disaster that sent the whole team into a death spiral.



Have we ever identified the responsible party? Who signed off on this?

Zvon
Aug 09 2013 01:58 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
We're missing the easy answer. The 1993 team was disastrous because the team tampered with the classic uniform design. You can add stripes -- or take them away --and mess with the basic jersey color. But adding the tail under Mets was a karmic disaster that sent the whole team into a death spiral.



Have we ever identified the responsible party? Who signed off on this?


I second this emotion!

Edgy MD
Aug 09 2013 02:04 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
Yes, but why does that approach so frequently fail? I can't think of many specific examples right now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the same thing happen with other teams. This year's Blue Jays, perhaps. Why is it that adding three or four all-stars doesn't make your team better? My best guess is that it's because generally these star players you add are past their 30th birthday, and by then there's a greater chance that they're in decline.

But Vince Coleman was only 30 in 1992. Bret Saberhagen was 28. Bobby Bonilla was 29. Eddie Murray was 36 and Willie Randolph was 37.

In 2003, Tom Glavine was 37, Roberto Alomar was 35, Mo Vaughn was 35, and Cliff Floyd was 30.

I would say that it wasn't unreasonable to think that the 1992/93 group should have improved the team. Obviously, it didn't.

Stakes are much higher when veteran players on long-term deals fail. You can't or don't swap them out of the lineup as readily. They're not versaitile enough to try in new places. An injury to them might mean a huge chunk of your payroll doing nothing. Plus, if they fail, their potential replacements have often been dealt off or neglected.

Niuewenhuis fails, and you try Lagares. Or fuck it, you try them both. Coleman fails... and you put all your professional and emotional energy into getting Coleman right, because you've got. to redeem. that contract.

When you load up like that, there's often only one road-map to success. You've frequently burned the alternatives.

Good plans and good organizations need to be NIMBLE!

G-Fafif
Aug 09 2013 02:10 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

I'm in the early '90s in my Happiest Recap research and writing right now and have been reminded just how badly 1991 went down, both literally and conceptually. 53-38 on July 21, 77-84 at season's end. It wasn't received as "oh, bad year after a string of good ones, buck up, let's go get 'em." It was all-out panic, thus the firing/spending/trading binge pre-'92 and the fallout (even worse fallout, that is) of '93.

The overall 2001 fizzle after 1997-2000 (the uplifting sudden late-season surge into contention notwithstanding) was greeted in eerily similar fashion. When '02 replicated '92, I wasn't surprised. Difference in '03 as opposed to '93 was the impatient doubling down on more big names, whereas Tony Fernandez was the only significant addition after '92 (and, it seemed at the time, a wise one) and there was a sense that no way could the Bonilla-Murray-Saberhagen Mets be that bad again.

Ha.

Ceetar
Aug 09 2013 02:11 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 09 2013 02:25 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Gotta love how Harper damns the Mets offense in 1992 by pointing out how few triples they hit as though that explained anything.

themetfairy
Aug 09 2013 02:29 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

My older son was born the morning that pitchers and catchers reported that year.

That's my one positive association with the season.

metsmarathon
Aug 09 2013 02:34 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

G-Fafif wrote:
I'm in the early '90s in my Happiest Recap research and writing right now and have been reminded just how badly 1991 went down, both literally and conceptually. 53-38 on July 21, 77-84 at season's end. It wasn't received as "oh, bad year after a string of good ones, buck up, let's go get 'em." It was all-out panic, thus the firing/spending/trading binge pre-'92 and the fallout (even worse fallout, that is) of '93.

The overall 2001 fizzle after 1997-2000 (the uplifting sudden late-season surge into contention notwithstanding) was greeted in eerily similar fashion. When '02 replicated '92, I wasn't surprised. Difference in '03 as opposed to '93 was the impatient doubling down on more big names, whereas Tony Fernandez was the only significant addition after '92 (and, it seemed at the time, a wise one) and there was a sense that no way could the Bonilla-Murray-Saberhagen Mets be that bad again.

Ha.


interestingly, bonilla and saberhagen both were much better in 93...

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 09 2013 02:40 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Davey Johnson's Mets didn't win the World Series until this guy arrived. And it all went downhill when he sustained his first major injury while playing for the worst team money could buy. The game, reported below, would be his last as a Met.



BASEBALL; Injury Inc.: Magadan Fractures His Wrist
By JOE SEXTON
Published: August 09, 1992

The images of doom and defeat for the Mets have become a sad blur. The fresh frames, though, keep being fed into the 1992 reel of regret, and today there were added ones of injury and insult.

There was the scene of Dave Magadan, on his knees at second base in an explosion of dirt in the fifth inning, his right wrist broken. And in the ninth, there was the scene of Doug Dascenzo, in a second detonation of dust, sliding safely across the plate, another broken afternoon of effort for the Mets left in his trail.

The Mets, who have lost players and games at an astonishing rate all season, lost to the Cubs, 4-3, at Wrigley Field. Then, when the diagnosis on Magadan was confirmed moments later, the Mets discovered they had lost their third baseman for a minimum of a month. Double Digits in Games Behind

And so the vicious cycle of humiliation and hurt and backpedaling in the National League East has spun at last out of control for the Mets. The losing streak is at five games, the deficit is at 10 games, the disabled list at the moment is an overrun ward of essential performers.

The season, squandered inexcusably for months, has gone off the screen, lost in an unforgiving vortex of failure and circumstance.

"We're not in the miracle stage yet," said Manager Jeff Torborg. "But we're approaching it."

Lee Guetterman ushered the Mets along today. The left-hander came on in the ninth with the score deadlocked at 3-3. Dascenzo singled. Ryne Sandberg fought off Guetterman's full arsenal of quality pitches and then nailed his first mistake, singling to right to advance Dascenzo to third.

"The last pitch was up and away," said Guetterman. "Sandberg's got enough experience to know what to do with it." Fly Ball the Crusher

Mark Grace then came to the plate understanding he only had to do the minimum. Get the baseball in the air and get the game over with. Grace's sacrifice fly to left was obviously a run-producer the second it began its ascent.

It fell ultimately into Kevin Bass's glove, and Dascenzo slid over the plate, and gone in the riot of noise at Wrigley was Dwight Gooden's first start after coming off the disabled list and Bass's contributions of a run batted in, a run scored and a pair of stolen bases.

If Magadan plays again in 1992, he'll be fortunate. The third baseman said the medical personnel at Northwestern Memorial Hospital reported that his fractured wrist would require perhaps six weeks to heal.

"If it is the end of my season," said Magadan, "what a fitting end it is." Wrist Struck by Throw

The end began with a routine play in the infield. The Mets had scored a run off Frank Castillo in the fifth on Magadan's single and there were Mets on first and third with Bass at the plate. His potential double-play grounder to second was fed from Sandberg to shortstop Rey Sanchez. Magadan, trying to fly into second hard, held his right arm high during his slide. Sanchez's relay smashed into Magadan's wrist. The run that scored from third came at exorbitant cost.

"I wasn't conscious of where my hands were," said Magadan. "And then I was in total shock. I could tell from the sound that it was broken. It was a sound like a baseball would make crashing into eggshells."

Every start is a tough start for the club's pitchers, and it was no different for Gooden. If there was added emotion because of the right-hander's return, it didn't add up to much on the scoreboard. The Cubs slapped a run on Gooden in the first, added another in the third and went ahead for good against him in the fifth.

"There was no problem physically," said Gooden. There were, though, ample difficulties with location and velocity.

"There's obviously no more room for losing," said Gooden. "There's room for hoping, I suppose. A lot of hoping." INSIDE PITCH

The Mets, who had told PATRICK HOWELL he was being sent back to the minors to make room for KEVIN BASS, told him to unpack his bags after the game. The center fielder was needed to go back on the roster because of DAVE MAGADAN's injury. . . . "All I foresee is a chance to play," said Bass, who was acquired from the Giants on Friday. "But one guy can maybe ignite a different attitude with his air or flair. I'm not saying I'm necessarily that guy."

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 09 2013 09:56 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke



An Open Letter To Bobby Bonilla
Published: January 05, 1992

Dear Bobby:

Congratulations on your new contract. It must feel great knowing that you and your family are secure for life. So Bobby, why are you so sour? Why do you persist in bashing the Pirates' management at every turn? Are you so concerned that selling yourself to the highest bidder doesn't square with your "great guy" image? Does maintaining that image require the presence of other, non-economic factors? Is that what's behind this modern-day tragedy you've created in which those simultaneously wicked and bumbling Pirates executives are solely to blame for your leaving Pittsburgh? Bobby, are you trying to kid us or yourself? Listen, forget the image thing and just enjoy your fortune; you're not such a great guy, anyway, and the money hasn't a thing to do with it.

A great guy would have made a graceful exit. A great guy would have publicly thanked the Pirates for providing him the opportunity to grow into a $29 million player. A great guy would have thanked his teammates for giving him the thrill of participating in two National League championship playoffs. A truly great guy would have expressed his gratitude to the fans of Pittsburgh for their warm support.

Look, Bobby, you've said this is a business; now you should start acting as though you mean it. The situation boils down to a very simple business proposition: You acted in what you perceived to be your best interests by signing with the Mets, and the Pirates acted in what they perceived to be their best interests by letting you go. Maybe the Pirates felt they couldn't afford to pay you $29 million. Or perhaps the Pirates felt that while they could afford the freight, you weren't worth more than their last offer.

Interestingly, before you signed, many people opined that you should command a larger contract than you merited strictly for your on-the-field performance because of "intangibles"; i.e., because you're such a great guy. As I recall, the Pirates' last offer was for about $24 million, which would be about at the level where the "great-guy premium" part of your $29 million contract kicks in. That makes the Pirates' handling of your contract negotiations look pretty responsible.

Bobby, there are no villains in this saga, and there are no heroes, either. There aren't even any great guys. JIM WHALEN Pittsburgh


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/05/sport ... 68292.html

________________________



BASEBALL; Boos Bounce Off Bonilla's Back
By JOE SEXTON
Published: May 31, 1992

The booing was bad Wednesday night. The booing was worse Friday night. Bobby Bonilla heard it, understood it and promised it wouldn't be long before he would be able to forget it.

"We'll hear cheers here," Bonilla said before yesterday's game against the Braves at Shea Stadium. "We all will."

Bonilla, in extended and explicit remarks about fan reaction to his struggles at Shea and his response to it, said yesterday that he had no gripes with the booing. It wasn't foreign or offensive to him, which no doubt is a good thing considering Bonilla was later in the afternoon booed mercilessly for his play in the field and performance at the plate in a 6-1 loss to the Braves. Bonilla, who wore earplugs yesterday, insisted it was only to increase his concentration at the plate.

"I know the makeup of the New York fan, I know the mentality," said Bonilla, who was reared in the South Bronx. "People want to see you do well. It's nothing more than I ask of and want from myself." 'Where Does That Come From?'

"People come to games for an escape," Bonilla said. "It's supposed to be entertainment, and to see a club get shut out nearly four games in a row isn't fun."

Bonilla's comments were measured and precise, but beneath them was a deep confusion and dismay over what he said had been the misrepresentation of his position with respect to fans earlier in the week.

He said he had been told by a club official that at least one newspaper had reported that Bonilla had said he did not like fans. He said, as well, he had been told by the club official that local radio shows had been full of less than complimentary talk regarding his reaction to the booing at Shea.

Bonilla, as a result, made a point of addressing reporters after Friday night's game, threatening that he would limit their access to him if any "twisting" of his remarks took place.

"I don't like fans? Where does that come from?" asked Bonilla. "Why wouldn't I like fans? Why wouldn't I want kids to come to a game?

"Hey, I'm a Latin player who comes from New York. I have lots of responsibilities. People are looking at me, up to me. And my message to them is that anything is possible. It seems, though, that people are trying to test me."

The booing, of course, has come because of Bonilla's failures at the plate at Shea. Bonilla, hitless in four at-bats with a strikeout Friday night, went 0 for 4 again yesterday as his average at Shea sunk to .130. He has not homered and has driven in only four runs at Shea.

Bonilla, signed to a five-year, $29 million deal, was consequently booed even before the club left for its road trip through California two weeks ago. He smiled and worked through those episodes, and yesterday he pledged to do similarly through his current trial by ire.

"It won't change the way I go about playing the game," Bonilla said. "What do people think I'll come to the park and sulk? That's not my makeup. And what about when I hit a three-run bomb to win a game here. Do you think I'd tell the fans to stick it? Of course not."


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/31/sport ... -back.html

________________________




Sports of The Times; Can Bonilla Get Along In New York?
By GEORGE VECSEY
Published: April 16, 1993

IT always makes me nervous when I hear people say "we are working on our relationship," because that sounds like trouble, big trouble. This is exactly where Bobby Bonilla stands with his hometown of New York. They are working on their relationship, and I'm not sure it can be saved.

Bonilla just may not be cool enough to have a long career in New York. Nothing against him. This is a hard town these days, and only the strong survive.

He might have been better off in Pittsburgh, with a couple of camera crews and a couple of reporters and a couple of microphones.

I feel badly for Bobby Bonilla, because he is not a sourpuss from "out there," like Kevin McReynolds, who hated every minute at Shea Stadium.

Bonilla was no Roberto Clemente in Pittsburgh, and he would have settled for being Bobby Bo from the Bronx, but now it might be better for him elsewhere.

Bonilla went way over the line the other day, challenging Bob Klapisch of The New York Daily News to step forward and fight. It was pretty normal street talk, but it happened in the locker room of the Mets right after a game, so of course it became big news.

Bonilla was angry because he had heard bad reports about "The Worst Team Money Could Buy," a book written by Klapisch and John Harper of The Daily News. He said he hasn't read the book, if that matters.

His main complaint seems to be that the reporters abused their access to the team; the writers argue there is no major news in this book that was not reported last season. But the book is only the symptom of the real problem between Bonilla and New York: there is no place to hide anymore, not even where you dress.

Make no mistake: New York is no innocent in this affair. Sports is big business these days. Sports is good for commercials and ratings and circulation and book sales. Everything is hot. If you can get a player to react, film at 11. If a player goes off at an author, a book company can whip up an advertisement in a day or two.

Sometimes it resembles a bullfight, with the picadors and the matadors and the toreadors, but in this bullfight the central character is being paid $29 million for five years. So why doesn't Bonilla just take the money and relax? Could you? Could I?

This is not merely some little intramural media squabble, because it affects how sports are perceived these days, how athletes live their lives. When Bonilla chose to play for the Mets last season, he was caught in some inconsistencies. He was thin-skinned. He was overweight. He had a mediocre year. This spring he reported with a slimmer body and allegedly a thicker skin, but within days there were unconfirmed reports that he was taking it easy in workouts, and the battle was back on.

Now comes the book, the book he hasn't read. And Bonilla and every other player has to know that 24 hours a day on talk radio they are being called "chumps" and "losers," and not just by the callers, either.

There has always been tension between athletes and the press, but it has gotten worse. Before the electronic swarm, a reporter could stand by an athlete's locker and have a conversation. Maybe things were explained off the record, just as they are in the real world. Maybe journalists broke a confidence or wrote the truth. Maybe athletes threatened reporters.

It's tougher now. Watergate made the press more skeptical, which was good. The players have figured out they cannot be misquoted or even "interpreted" by a benign television camera. After George Steinbrenner raised the tensions around his ball club, "baseball writers" needed the outlook of a house dick.

Meanwhile, anonymous people went on Oprah and Donahue and discussed things you didn't used to mention in public. Gary Hart dared the press to find scandal in his private life, which wasn't hard. One newspaper sent a gossip reporter on the road with the Mets. These guys are not exactly negotiating nuclear arms reductions, are they?

So it's open antagonism between the press and the athletes now, and maybe it's more honest that way. Many athletes no longer sit in their lockers and chat about the sport they play, and I submit that something has been lost. There are some bright people in this town like Doc Rivers and Sam Bowie and John Vanbiesbrouck who can handle it. Jim Abbott's going to be fine, and so will Boomer Esiason. Maybe Bonilla could laugh it off if he hit .320, but I don't think that's going to happen. New York is not for everybody. Not even locals. It may not be right for Bobby Bo.


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/sport ... -york.html

metirish
Aug 09 2013 10:05 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Gotta love how Harper damns the Mets offense in 1992 by pointing out how few triples they hit as though that explained anything.



Wow, Harper was always an asshole eh?

Zvon
Aug 09 2013 10:07 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

I did not enjoy the Mets during these years.

G-Fafif
Aug 10 2013 10:55 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

Davey Johnson's Mets didn't win the World Series until this guy arrived. And it all went downhill when he sustained his first major injury while playing for the worst team money could buy. The game, reported below, would be his last as a Met.


The Mets activated August-injured Willie Randolph so he could play one final game on Closing Day 1992. They extended Mags no such courtesy, as noted in Worst Team:

[H]is tenure with the club would clearly come to an end by September. That's when Magadan reported that his wrist had healed, but he was sitting at home alone in Tampa because the Mets never bothered to call. In fact, when a reporter informed Al Harazin of Magadan's recovery, the GM, eating lunch in the dining room at Wrigley, looked up from his plate and said simply, "Is that right?"

Magadan knew then that there'd be no returning to the Mets in 1993. He doubted they'd even offer him a contract or pursue him as a free agent. And he was right: When Magadan signed a two-year deal in December with the Florida Marlins worth $1.4 million, he walked away from the Mets without ever having received a phone call. It was an inglorious end to a career that never was. As Magadan put it, "I never did have the success with the Mets I imagined I would. I always thought I'd have a longer, better career in New York than that."


I was certain he'd come back and get a big hit off the Met bench by 2000, but he never did.

Ashie62
Aug 11 2013 10:19 AM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

SteveJRogers wrote:
Well, aspiring to that level of mediocrity pretty much has led to a lot of the Mets rather quagmire-esque seasons of false hopes and cock teases.


I would agree a cock tease is a form of hell..

d'Kong76
Aug 11 2013 02:23 PM
Re: 1993: The year the Mets broke

themetfairy wrote:
My older son was born the morning that pitchers and catchers reported that year.

That's my one positive association with the season.


My Mom died in the summer of '93, the Mets killed her.