Master Index of Archived Threads
Silent Treatment
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 11:55 AM |
|
Mets aren't allowing players, other personnel on WFAN
|
| Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 11:59 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Isn't this last year's story?
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 06 2015 12:00 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Good! Francessa can suck it!
|
| A Boy Named Seo Feb 06 2015 12:05 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
All of WFAN or just Francessa? Just for spring training? It's not a great idea to limit the reach of your brand or anything, but if it is just one guy's show for one month, I'm struggling to give a shit about it.
|
| Ceetar Feb 06 2015 12:12 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
fuck 'em, the Mets don't get anything from going on WFAN, and I'm all for giving the players one less interview to do.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Feb 06 2015 12:22 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
If I was a Mets player I wouldn't even want to talk to Mike Francesca, so being banned from doing it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. (It might actually be doing me a favor, since Mike's ire would be directed at the team instead of at me.)
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 06 2015 12:25 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
I have to ask, do you think the players sit around and pine to do interviews with Mike Francessa? The picture was a harvelously dramatic touch, btw!
|
| Ceetar Feb 06 2015 12:27 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Sounds like just Francesa and just Spring Training. And the players themselves aren't exactly banned if they're reached out to directly. The Mets i'm sure get a billion requests for this sorta stuff, and WFAN/Mike just don't make the cut. sucks to be them.
|
| Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 12:31 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Harvey must think all the time about more opportunities to be a petulant jerk on the radio.
|
| G-Fafif Feb 06 2015 12:34 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
It has been framed as a de facto boycott of the station by the organization as a whole...which seems self-defeating for the Mets. I don't know what the bottom-line connection is between appearances by Kirk Nieuwenhuis on Joe & Evan and spikes in ticket sales (I've noticed in recent years every interview is preceded, succeeded and peppered by obvious quid pro quo plugs to call 718 507 TIXX or go to mets.com), but the idea that "hmph, we don't want to talk to you anymore," just seems smaller in approach than it needs to be.
|
| G-Fafif Feb 06 2015 12:37 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Goodness, I love that image. Picturing Jon Niese staring longingly at his phone, then his radio, then his phone, then the clock somewhere between 1 and 6:30 PM, then his phone...
|
| Ceetar Feb 06 2015 12:41 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Sure, but then again, is the portion of the Mets fans listening to WFAN also NOT listening to all the billion other places to get Mets news? Perhaps you're reaching everyone just fine. I'd argue we could do with less newspapers and beat writers in general too. Why does Sandy need to go on SNY, then WFAN, then WOR, then talk to Rubin, etc etc.. Here's an idea.. I don't think they're denying him credentials, just the use of their PSL facilities and shuttling him players. Show up, host a remote from Duffy's, talk to players. Hell, set up in the parking lot. Send one of your lackeys out to the field to interview players. The media/WFAN exist as middlemen to transfer the message from the team to the fans. The Mets feel they've got that covered plenty, I tend to agree.
|
| G-Fafif Feb 06 2015 12:52 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
WFAN far outrates the other sports station in NY. There are people who are not heavy users of the Internet or social media who cling to afternoon drive time radio as their conduit for Mets information and interaction. A good portion are Mets fans and prospective Mets customers. You don't seek ways not to reach them. There is no such thing as reaching 'x'% of your public and deciding that's cool. That goes for the Mets or anybody with a product to sell. When I leave the sphere of online Mets immersion and physically interact with human beings, I'm quickly reminded -- by Mets fans I wouldn't consider anything but hardcore -- that WFAN or a given newspaper or TV sportscast is still how some people instinctively connect to their team. Those people buy tickets, too...and might buy more of them. It's not about servicing FAN or Francesa. It's about the station's listeners.
|
| Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 01:03 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Baseless speculation, but maybe the Yankees aren't keen on the Mets continuing to get "call 718 507 TIXX or go to mets.com" bumpers on the Yankee flagship station, perhaps even sewing that into their deal.
|
| John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2015 02:14 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Yeah I don't give a fig for the Mets' motivations wrt the marketplace, competition etc etc. Just as a guy with a radio, I want to hear the occasional guest spot on FAN because I won't - ever - listen to WOR and Michael Kay and the ESPN group sucks a giant walrus cock.
|
| Vic Sage Feb 06 2015 02:24 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
what, they stopped sucking big hairy moose cock? or is the walrus's phallus being pleasured in addition to the Cervidae's BHMC?
|
| Ceetar Feb 06 2015 02:59 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
||
|
yeah, I get that it's about the listeners, not the station itself. And they all get TV and many of them SNY and the papers will still publish the highlights of anything said. But what I don't see is that WFAN deserves any of that.(And still, presumably, the other shows can do Mets guys) The Mets, in part due to WFAN itself, find themselves competing with them in many ways. It's not on them to pawn out the players to every interested party, and if they decided to scale back I have no problem with them starting there. It's similar to the semi-boycott of Mike Puma over the Colon joke last year. If you don't feel said outlet is serving your brand in a good light, fuck 'em. And, if WFAN and/or Francesa were in any way beholden to their Mets-fan listeners, they'd find a way to talk about or to the Mets anyway.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 04:51 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
||
|
I didn't give this a second's thought when I posted. I was wondering mainly about the enforceability of such a ban. I mean, if Matt Harvey struck a deal to shill for Qualcomm, for example, and arrangements were made for Matt to do Francesa's show to talk about Qualcomm, you know, what do you think the Mets would do? Could do? [youtube]6tqXaz5bD4Q[/youtube]
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 06 2015 06:42 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Well, I think your wordily back peddling a bit. And I'd have to
|
| Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 09:32 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
I realize it's just a f'rinstance, but it'd be pretty hilarious of Qualcomm actually asked him to go back out and carry water for him again.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 09:54 PM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Thanks for chiming in. But what the hell are you talking about? What did I back peddle from? And how did I do this? And you think that the players' union would allow the Mets, or any other team, to forbid their players from signing endorsement deals with a company like Qualcomm?
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 06:51 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Replacing one hypothetical with and even hypo'er hypothetical? I dunno, if not that... smoke, mirrors, and cheese? [fimg=400]http://mlblivescorenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/a605b_qualcomm.jpg[/fimg]
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 07 2015 11:37 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
||
|
I still have no idea what you're talking about. I'll try this again. What did I back peddle from? What supposed point did I flip-flop on? Change of opinion? What? Where? [fimg=666]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRB0dY3gXKX4JxBM2Z-UZtB1G997XQsdjRq1i95ds82o8GjOzTxpA[/fimg]
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 11:41 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
I'm not going to play tit for tat, er, I mean kit
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 07 2015 11:43 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
Then don't start what you can't articulate. There's no tit for tat here. There's just one guy slinging gibberish barbs at the other guy and the other guy simply trying to figure out what the hell the first guy is talking about.
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 11:46 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
You back peddled, it's not up to me to prove it.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2015 09:49 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
|
I didn't ask you to prove it. I merely asked for an explanation. You wouldn't be able to prove it even if you wanted to, because I didn't back peddle. Hell, I didn't even take a stance to back peddle from in my first post. And it is up you. Posts are fair game and you should be able to back up what you post, especially something that's sort of accusatory towards another poster. Anyone else wanna jump in here, help out ol' Kong?
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 08 2015 10:40 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Did somebody ask for back-peddling?
|
| d'Kong76 Feb 08 2015 10:45 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
Is he posing for his Madame Tussaud's wax creation?
|
| Edgy MD Feb 08 2015 10:58 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
I prefer (and never in my life did I think I'd be confessing which Matt Harvey nudies I prefer) these ones with the brown glove. The orange glove in the other shots looks toxic and I get all antsy seeing it around his uncovered genitalia.
|
| A Boy Named Seo Feb 08 2015 11:30 AM Re: Silent Treatment |
|
I think if Qualcomm asked Harvey to go on the air and once again give terrible, stilted endorsements for their telecommunications services, and they furthermore asked him to due so during Spring Training on WFAN on Francessa's show, I think the Mets would probably try (very quietly) to dissuade him, they'd be unsuccessful, and then get skewered in the papers for trying to muzzle their guy. #FreeMattHarvey and shit. It doesn't sound like this 'ban' is in stone or anything, just a preferred direction for the team.
|
