Master Index of Archived Threads


Do you really own that bridge, Mr. Randolph? Honest?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 13 2006 06:36 PM

http://theeddiekranepoolsociety.blogspot.com/2006/03/willie-randolph-threading-on-some.html What a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel who you'd have to be loopy to believe for an instant if he tells you the sun is out at noon... I'd rant about Willie's dishonest character a little more, but this guy makes my point for me. If 2b is an open competition, and one guy totally sucks and another guy does well, how come the first guy wins the open competition? Maybe because Willie was totally full of shit from the get-go? That's my guess... Of course, if Kaz had a hot spring and Keppy not, WIllie's fans would have been proclaiming his supreme honesty, even though in either case he had his mind made up sometime around Boxing Day. Speaking of which, if Willie were the referee, and Kepp could beat up Kaz with one hand tied behind his back, Willie would see to it that both hands were tied up and let the beating begin. I really feel for Keppinger. He's geting totally screwed over here, and the Mets are a weaker team for it. This is completely disgusting. Excuse me while I puke my guts up.

Rotblatt Mar 13 2006 09:04 PM

I think someone brought this up in the 2B thread. . . Yeah, I agree that it's stupid and dishonest. As the dude from the blog mentions, though, it might be Willie taking one for the team, but regardless, it's still a poor way to run a ballclub. We'll see what happens, I suppose, but the immediate outlook for our 2B youngsters is looking pretty dim.

Rotblatt Mar 13 2006 09:11 PM

Oh, and while we're lambasting Mets management, I'd just like to take another pot shot at their misuse of Lambin, who, for like the umpteenth time, had a far better season than Hernandez last year. They've got a 25-year old middle infielder who hit 24 HR in under 400 AAA at bats last year, and they've only given him THREE at bats this spring, despite 1/3 of their roster being in the WBC. It makes no sense to me. Throw him out there and see how he does. As Bret points out, it's not that we'd actually USE him if he performs, but maybe we could trade him for another mediocre relief pitcher with a "live arm." Hoo-hah! This is fun.

Rockin' Doc Mar 13 2006 09:42 PM

Et tu, Rotblatt?

Nymr83 Mar 13 2006 11:03 PM

lol. last week they asked the easiest "final jeopardy" question ever, so easy in fact that i didnt think it deserved to be a question at all, except maybe in the teen tournament: the only line spoken in latin (3 words) in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.... you've got 2 of the 3 words above yeah this is offtopic but your post made me think of that and laugh back to your regularly scheduled (by bret) willie bashing...

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 06:17 AM

Nymr83 wrote: lol. last week they asked the easiest "final jeopardy" question ever, so easy in fact that i didnt think it deserved to be a question at all, except maybe in the teen tournament: the only line spoken in latin (3 words) in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.... you've got 2 of the 3 words above yeah this is offtopic but your post made me think of that and laugh back to your regularly scheduled (by bret) willie bashing... "Brute" is Latin? Okay, back to Willie-bashing. Now do you see what I meant by "Boone saved the Mets a ton of bad baseball by falling on his sword?" There's just no way Willie and Co. weren't going to give Boone a job, out of the so-called "open competition." That fight was fixed, but Boone just couldn't hack it. My thesis maintains that they go every time with the guy who has the impressive MLB resume. That's why I make so many cracks about finding Mookie back in the outfield someday. That's what they were trying to do with Boone. The guy just spent two years proving to the world that he was washed-up and the Mets think, Yeah but he hit 37 HRs back in 2002...Who the fuck cares what he did back then? Ed Kranepool had a good year back in 1966, does that mean we're going to consider Mr. Ed for another go-around? This is an organization that is pathologically opposed to giving a rookie a break--rookies (like Reyes and Wright) have to be no-brainers for at least a year before this organization will even put them on the radar screen. My whole argument about Kaz comes down to this: every winnning organization is weak at a position or two. I have no problem with that. I have a HUGE problem with paying through the teeth for a weak position. You used up your whole budget? Wel, maybe you need a good financial advisor, but short of that, did you have to spend 8 mil a year to get a lousy second baseman who had a little pop sporadically? Chrissake, you had that in Ty Wiggenton. You really needed to deal Wiggy off to get the potential Cy Young winner Kris Benson? Okay, you got Keppinger in that deal? You need Keppinger to do more than bat .300 and play semi-adequately at second base for minimum salary? What did you expect the guy to do when you got him? Play shortstop, too, and pitch middle relief and shit ginger snaps besides? You were a rotten club when you signed Kaz. You could afford to give some kids a shot. If you didn't like your own kids, you could have gotten someone else's for pretty cheap, if you only knew what a ballplayer looks like. But this "open competition" crapola is just too much. I don't know which is scarier--that Willie can't tell which second baseman had a good spring and which one didn't in an open competition, or that he thinks no one will notice how full of shit he is when he goes with his preconceived (and hopelessly dumb) idea that Kaz is any good. Both are terrifying.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 08:16 AM

"How many of them chili dawgs did you did you eat, Jethro?" "Et two, Brutus."

RealityChuck Mar 14 2006 09:00 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: [My thesis maintains that they go every time with the guy who has the impressive MLB resume. That's why I make so many cracks about finding Mookie back in the outfield someday. That's what they were trying to do with Boone. The guy just spent two years proving to the world that he was washed-up and the Mets think, Yeah but he hit 37 HRs back in 2002...Who the fuck cares what he did back then? . It's a concept known as "giving it a shot." He was cheap and worth a gamble. The Mets knew it was unlikely to pay off, but what's the harm in doing it?

Elster88 Mar 14 2006 09:11 AM

The Mets seem to like to use 2002 to evaluate players. That's why we traded for Julio.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 09:57 AM

RealityChuck wrote: but what's the harm in doing it? That they would go north with Boone and Matsui, neither of whom is an MLB 2b-man, while shitcanning Hernandez and Keppinger, who maybe are, and are cheaper to boot?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 14 2006 10:00 AM

Yes, that would have been bad, and they very well might have done it. But that's not to say that there can't be value in a guy like Boone. If Matsui wasn't in the mix, and Boone had played well in March, he could have been a useful veteran backup to Hernandez or Keppinger. That was never likely to happen this year, with this team, and because of that I was never happy with the idea of Boone in camp, and was glad when he called it quits. But I don't think that inviting the Bret Boones of the world is always the wrong thing to do.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 10:05 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Yes, that would have been bad, and they very well might have done it. But that's not to say that there can't be value in a guy like Boone. If Matsui wasn't in the mix, and Boone had played well in March, he could have been a useful veteran backup to Hernandez or Keppinger. That was never likely to happen this year, with this team, and because of that I was never happy with the idea of Boone in camp, and was glad when he called it quits. But I don't think that inviting the Bret Boones of the world is always the wrong thing to do. If the guy himself decides that he looks more like 200 hundred pounds of doody than a MLB ballplayer, don't you think you ought to think about why you couldn't figure that out during the two years while he played like 200 pounds of doody?

Elster88 Mar 14 2006 11:15 AM

Plenty of fodder for Met-bashing. Bret Boone's invite is not such a big deal. Too much is made of guys like that. Galarraga's invite was a huge problem last year too, right?

RealityChuck Mar 14 2006 11:38 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"]but what's the harm in doing it? That they would go north with Boone and Matsui, neither of whom is an MLB 2b-man, while shitcanning Hernandez and Keppinger, who maybe are, and are cheaper to boot? Who said they were going north with him? They invited him to spring training as a non-roster invitee. If he still has the chops, he goes north; if not, they say goodbye. Why is that hard to understand?

Elster88 Mar 14 2006 11:49 AM

Don't try too hard RealityChuck. Last year it was Galarraga. This year it's Boone. For some reason, some people think having these guys in camp means that some youngster will never get a shot to play baseball again.

seawolf17 Mar 14 2006 11:56 AM

If the Mets didn't waste all their time and hundreds of millions of dollars giving Andres Galarraga ABs last spring, they would have won the division. Any team that invites a veteran to spring training with a non-guaranteed spot is moronic; who does that? Just because a guy was good doesn't mean he'll be good again. The Mets are really the only club who does this; every other team looks to its young'uns to inspire them to victory. Willie Randolph is a moron. (sc=100)

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 12:15 PM

="seawolf17"]If the Mets didn't waste all their time and hundreds of millions of dollars giving Andres Galarraga ABs last spring, they would have won the division. Any team that invites a veteran to spring training with a non-guaranteed spot is moronic; who does that? Just because a guy was good doesn't mean he'll be good again. The Mets are really the only club who does this; every other team looks to its young'uns to inspire them to victory. Willie Randolph is a moron. (sc=100) When you're finished arguing against things I'm not saying, you can try arguing against what I am saying: The Mets don't know a secondbaseman from a hole in the base, and only by the good grace of Boone dropping out of the equation were the Mets prevented from him coming north, however badly he did. If he couldn't move three feet for a ground ball, and couldn't hit a homer with "The Simpsons" on five feet away, how could the Mets tell? They think Kaz Matsui's winning the "open competition" for the second base job now.

seawolf17 Mar 14 2006 12:24 PM

Wasn't a direct blast on you, Bret; just naysayers in general. I have no problem with bringing vets to spring training.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 12:26 PM

Oh. You know, Seawolf, Jason Phillips looks just like Dennis Ribant.

RealityChuck Mar 14 2006 12:27 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The Mets don't know a secondbaseman from a hole in the base, and only by the good grace of Boone dropping out of the equation were the Mets prevented from him coming north, however badly he did. Interesting. Who on the Mets said that Boone was definitely going north? When?

seawolf17 Mar 14 2006 12:29 PM

edited because I don't feel like arguing

Elster88 Mar 14 2006 12:56 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: only by the good grace of Boone dropping out of the equation were the Mets prevented from him coming north, however badly he did. I must have missed the release saying Boone had made the Opening Day roster.

RealityChuck Mar 14 2006 09:21 PM

Here's an addendum that might explain what Randolph is doing: Let's just assume -- for the heck of it, since it most certainly isn't the case -- the Mets want to get rid of Kaz Matsui. Maybe Minyana might even have some nibbles. Willie comes out and says that it's wide open at 2B. Minyana takes him aside. "Willie," he says, "I'm trying to move this guy. He's got a big contract and there isn't much interest. And when the teams hear that we don't think he's better than a couple of unproven rookies, whatever interest there is will evaporate." Willie gets the idea. "The job was always Matsui's, really." He plays Kaz as much as possible to back this up. Now Minyana calls other teams. "We really think he's good enough to start for us. No doubt at all. Of course, if you make the right offer . . . " Would it fool another team? Maybe not. But no one's going to consider Kaz unless it looks like the Mets have confidence in him. It's part of the gamesmanship and if this helps move Matsui elsewhere, it's well worth it.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 14 2006 11:18 PM

So you think Omar has a simple plan to deal with Kaz's contract, and Willie wrecks it by yapping about how he's about to bench Kaz and diminish his value to those blind GMs around baseball? And this yapping is a credit to Willie's astuteness, how, exactly?

RealityChuck Mar 15 2006 08:53 AM

Perhaps the interest was expressed after Willie first made the comment. Or Omar told Willie he had given up on trading Matsui, then changed his mind. Or Omar did not keep Willie informed about the progress. It doesn't really matter. This is a pretty trivial point to be so worked up about.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 09:10 AM

Yes, I often get worked up over displays of total incompetence and dishonesty that most CPFers find trivial or even examples of Metly virtue.

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 09:33 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: only by the good grace of Boone dropping out of the equation were the Mets prevented from him coming north, however badly he did. I must have missed the release saying Boone had made the Opening Day roster.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:02 AM

Did you happen to catch the articles saying that Matsui has the edge on the job, based on his performance in the open competition for the job this spring? If bad batting, lousy fielding, and a rotten recent MLB track record wins you jobs around Tradition Field, I'd say Boonie had a lock on the position.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 10:05 AM

If anything, it's the $8 million that puts Matsui in the lead. That's an advantage that Boone didn't have.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:08 AM

But doesn't such a huge wallet make sliding difficult?

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 10:26 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Did you happen to catch the articles saying that Matsui has the edge on the job, based on his performance in the open competition for the job this spring? If bad batting, lousy fielding, and a rotten recent MLB track record wins you jobs around Tradition Field, I'd say Boonie had a lock on the position. Then you'd be wrong. The idea that Boone was guaranteed a position on the Opening Day roster is ridiculous. I'd even say stupid.

RealityChuck Mar 15 2006 10:28 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Yes, I often get worked up over displays of total incompetence and dishonesty that most CPFers find trivial or even examples of Metly virtue. How is that total incompetence? How, in fact, is it incompetence at all? At worse, he made a minor mistake. Randolph is still learning and makes mistakes. But jumping on him because of it is like saying David Wright should have been traded away last year because he made a few errors in the field.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:34 AM

You know what? It's actually benefical to the organization. Yeah, that's the ticket. Try my time-honored test: if a Yankees' GM and manager pulled off such a schmucky operation, would you give them a pass? How about some neutral team? You can state blithely that you'd hold the same exact opinion of it in that case, but then I'd have to add your name to my list of self-serving pathological liars (Willie, Fred, Nixon, Pete Rose. O.J.)--please don't make me do that.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 10:40 AM

I've lost track of what you're talking about. Are you condemning Willie's comments, or the possibility that Matsui wins the job? I can't get worked up over what Willie Randolph says. I don't expect him, or anyone who addresses the public, to be completely candid. It would be great, but it just doesn't happen. And no, I feel the same way about the manager of the Milwaukee Brewers. I don't care if he's candid either. If that makes me the next O.J. Simpson, so be it.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 11:08 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I've lost track of what you're talking about. Are you condemning Willie's comments, or the possibility that Matsui wins the job? Can't answer until it becomes clear if Willie flat-out lied about there being an open competition, or this is an ultra-clever plan of Omar's to deceive the numerous blind GMs from realizing that Matsui isn't a MLB player, or if this was a communications snafu of the hghest order, or if Willie is just universally acknowledged to be Joe Torre in blackface and so a liar to his fans and the press all the time, or what. I'm not sure why, if you regard every baseball official as being completely without credibility, we ever discuss the significance of any public statement. Isn't the best answer to "Why did Willie/Omar/Fred say x or y o g" always "because they're spinning it to make us think the most favorable interpretation, however unlikely, about their team?" Why waste your time then? I know people on the CPF have, from time to time, made terrible fun of absurd lying remarks made by non-Mets spokepersons. Even called them a name or two, I think.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 11:27 AM

I think there's a difference between spinning and "completely without credibility" but I'll put that aside. I've always taken this stuff with a grain of salt. I think "maybe what he's saying is true, but maybe it's not." As such, it has limited worth to be sure. Do we spend a lot of time parsing official Mets statements around here? Maybe. I hadn't noticed, but it's possible. The "careful parsing" discussions are the ones I usually don't participate in. I think, though, it happens more often with the work of sportswriters than with team employees, but I could be wrong. Spin, though, is a fact of life. They do want to sell tickets, they do want to make their players more marketable to other teams. The thing to do is avoid buying tickets based on what Omar or Willie says, just on whether or not you think attending a ballgame is worth your entertainment dollar. And hope that, if they're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of another GM, that it works.

horace p. osterdonk Mar 15 2006 11:30 AM It is reminding me of an old times in PYed

Once the Ollie Putnam (high MayoR of PYed) was getting the idea on him to hiring his nephews Olie and Olin for working. They got the jobs to give directions to the people visiting at the City Halls and Ollie is a good uncle paid them all $200 for the weeks in the advanced. The boys (at 12 and 11 years of old on that time) are each day doing a terrible job to tell everyone the directions, and even said to one mans "we are thinking don't bother to pay the traffic ticket and go home" rather than give a directions to the town Trafficks Courts. The man is screaming "this is Nephewtism" to have these bad boys to work here, and the boys they are laughting harder at it. then the Ollie gives a stern lecture and high regrets to them, and tries to take the $200 back, but it is not coming back because they have already bought the lumber for the new Tree house and as they say in PYed, "when the woods are cut, there is no return to the past". So now Ollie thinks it is needed to make them to do a good job instead of to give the job on someone else for more moneys. If mR. saberman came to the city hall he would suggest to do this I am sure of it, and also Call Ollie a lyingman because Ollie keeps saying to all the peoples the boys are learning on how to do the job every day and "Olie and Olin are my directions boys for City Hall yes sir" while he is asking on if there is some money to get some other mans to do it on the cheap. In the Towns meetins that week we are deciding this: the boys, yes they are doing a bad jobs to give directions, even one person is told go to the 10th Street offices when he needs to go to Poughkeepsie. BUT is it an outrageous so much to make us call the beloved Ollie Putnam mayor in a bad way so he will want to leave and hide his face and countenance from all times? NO. so instead we make helpful suggestions like please give the boys the job to rake the leaves by the river or help in the pumpkins harvest etc. Ollie is then taking on these suggestions to useful with them, reasoning for that one, and in the end, is having Olie and Olin to be the cutting Ribbons of Ceremony boys for 2 months, using the whole money, every money, and saving the Ribbon Payments (which are on usual, outrageous) for to hire Mrs. Edith at part times and by remote phone to give directions to the peoples because she really knows everything and is using the money. And she is very old for a long time. In PYed, we are saying, "When the Rooster barks to the Seagull, it is not a sure thing he is trying to be the dog (maybe he is just friendly!)". Also we say, it is not always in a high bad way with an intentional malicious that the waiter drops the soup on Mrs. Peabody". For Ollie, he says next year if mrs. Edith is on the retire, the job is "open competition" and everybody should get ready to draw a map on city halls! This is a top job, in PYed, or anyplace that has the City Hall of PYed. So we still are believing that it could be the nephews again if they want it. As we say in PYed, "The nephews do not fall down away from the Uncle", and we also say "if the goat pays the shoemaker, he will be wearing shoes 90%". The explanation of this is clear when you are understanding that in PYed, (unlike in everyplace) it is actually very high unusual for a goat to USE shoes. For the Omar and Willie, we in PYed are thinking it is a hard job on how to run with the Mets and some days are the paying the wrong man for the wrong things on an honest mistakes or because of the unpredictable, more than the conspiration or malicious. we will hope that the Saberman will not feel all the time that he has been given a cheating! He will do a good job on remembering that Ollie Putnam (who is definitely a nephewtism), he DID get the money used, and now when you are in City Halls, allow extra time for Mrs. edith to tell a story with your directions, and you will also hear and see the bouncing and happy sounds of the nephews who have earned the pay by raking the pumpkins. And that is how we stay so much on tracks in PYed! EXPECT THE METS!

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 11:33 AM

Now, that's what I was trying to say! I couldn't have phrased it better myself. Thanks Horace!

MFS62 Mar 15 2006 11:38 AM

Horace, welcome. But, have you ever considered changing your medication? Later

RealityChuck Mar 15 2006 11:39 AM

="Bret Sabermetric"]Try my time-honored test: if a Yankees' GM and manager pulled off such a schmucky operation, would you give them a pass? How about some neutral team? Ignoring your use of post hoc ergo propter hoc in the loaded word, "schumucky," sure I wouldn't be upset by it. As a matter of fact, one reason the Yankees became such a powerhouse in the 90s was that Steinbrenner stopped trying to micromanage and jump all over his manager for small issues. You seem willing to fire the manager if he makes a single mistake. Even Steinbrenner at his worst wasn't that bad. Further, opinions change. Occam's Razor says that Randolph was probably originally thinking of an open competition, but changed his mind. Would you rather he stick with a bad idea just for consistency's sake? Would that make him more competent, in your mind? And, though you're outraged about this, it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. They know how the game is played.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 11:43 AM

RealityChuck wrote: Would you rather he stick with a bad idea just for consistency's sake? Would that make him more competent, in your mind? I think that the millions of people who voted for Bush in 2004 would say yes to that.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 12:28 PM

RealityChuck wrote: You seem willing to fire the manager if he makes a single mistake. Have I said to fire Willie? Are you saying this is his first mistake?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 12:35 PM

RealityChuck wrote: it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. So it's unreasonable to interpret what Willie says to reporters because his job is to tell lies and deceive everyone including his own players, but it's okay to speculate on what it "seems" players are thinking when they haven't said anything in public? Sounds good to me.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 12:37 PM

I don't even get why Keppinger's upset. It's just his MLB career here that's being dicked with. Be a man, for Chrissake, Keppy. This is how the game is played. Quicher bitchin and suck it up, man.

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 12:43 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 15 2006 12:54 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"]it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. So it's unreasonable to interpret what Willie says to reporters because his job is to tell lies and deceive everyone including his own players. He said there was an open competition. He didn't say, "If Keppinger has a higher batting average then he gets the job." He didn't say "If Matsui hits under .200 then he loses the job." For all we know, "open competition" means the guy who looks better in practice gets the job. ST games don't mean shit, as Tim Spehr will tell you. ___________________________ To nitpick over one quote (probably manipulated by the reporters), and talk about lying and deceit on the basis of that one quote, is not only stupid but a royal pain in the ass. Edit: Removed some curses and changed possible interpretation of "open competition"

Yancy Street Gang Mar 15 2006 12:48 PM

Well, that wouldn't exactly be "open." Open would mean that everyone enters the spring with the same chances. Maybe Willie said "open" and maybe he didn't mean it. If I was a second baseman in Mets camp trying to win a job, Randolph misstating the nature of the competition would piss me off. But I'm not. I'm a fan, and I just hope that the best player gets the job, however that comes about.

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 12:51 PM

I edited before you posted. We also don't know what Willie's telling the players. My guess is that he tells them different things than the reporters hear, and that he's constantly playing out scenarios in his mind. This quote that has Bret's panties in a twist is also from a few weeks ago now. Things can change in life.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 12:52 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"] ="RealityChuck"]it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. So it's unreasonable to interpret what Willie says to reporters because his job is to tell lies and deceive everyone including his own players. He said there was an open competition. He didn't say, "If Keppinger has a higher batting average then he gets the job." He didn't say "If Matsui hits under .200 then he loses the job." For all we know, "open competition" means that as long as Matsui doesn't hit zero and doesn't lose any limbs, he gets the job. ___________________________ To nitpick over one goddamn quote (probably manipulated by the reporters), and talk about lying and deceit on the basis of that one quote, is not only stupid, but a royal fucking pain in the ass. Poor innocent misunderstood martyrly Willie, being crucifed for merely not explaining to my satisfaction what "open competition" really meant to him. Not that I even asked, either. I just assumed I knew what those wordds mean--and then I go blast Willie because his interpretation was slightly different from mine. Oh, the humanity! The poor innocent dear, attacked by embittered fans and that evil lying press--and about only one little white lie, no doubt the first in his long and flawless life, despite the many temptation of that old devil Torre teaching him about the benefits of lying and trying to play people, too. In a world of murderers and child-molesters, the true crime here is even bothering to mention that Willie may have told his one well-intended lie. Oh, what a hypocrite I am! Am I without sin myself to castigate this beleaguered Saint so? Do I lack a human heart? Oh, the injustice of it all!

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 12:53 PM

Everything you just said is true. To crucify over one quote is stupid. I'm glad you figured it out.

RealityChuck Mar 15 2006 12:54 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"]it doesn't seem like anyone else on the team other than Keppinger is particularly bothered. So it's unreasonable to interpret what Willie says to reporters because his job is to tell lies and deceive everyone including his own players, but it's okay to speculate on what it "seems" players are thinking when they haven't said anything in public? Sounds good to me. First of all, when did he lie? Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? Why or why not? Second, how do you know he didn't tell the players what he was doing? How do you know my speculation is accurate or not? ]Have I said to fire Willie? I really don't know. Do you really think your opinions are so important to me that I search the board to seek them out? However, when one calls the manager "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility," it's hardly a glowing recommendation, is it? It's not unreasonable to assume you'd be much happier if he were gone. Or do you want "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility" continue as manager? I know I wouldn't. ] Are you saying this is his first mistake? No. I'm saying he made a mistake. He's probably made others. That's part of managing a team: you're going to make mistakes. And, of course, Willie's only been managing one year, so he'll make a few more than someone whose been doing it for decades. But so what? The fact of the matter that the team improved 12 games over the previous year under his watch. Maybe he cost them a game or two; maybe he won a couple of games that another manager would have blown. There's no way to quantify that. But as long as the team continues to improve under his watch, I see no need to excoriate him for a few perceived missteps.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 12:59 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? . Nice standard of credibility, Chuck: That which is not impossible. It's also not impossible that you and I are figments of each other's imagination.

MFS62 Mar 15 2006 01:07 PM

Figment http://www.figmentsimagination.com/ Later

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 01:09 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Second, how do you know he didn't tell the players what he was doing? How do you know my speculation is accurate or not? Okay, what WAS he doing? "Fellas, I made up shit about the open competition because I thought maybe Kaz would get hot and I could pretend that his playing time had nothing to do with the 8 Million dollar contract, but that didn't really work, because Kaz sucks HMC so now the open competition thing is off, okay, guys?" ] Do you really think your opinions are so important to me that I search the board to seek them out? No. I think they're so unimportant to you that you feel free to restate them before asking if your speculations match my opinions in any way. ] However, when one calls the manager "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility," it's hardly a glowing recommendation, is it? It's not unreasonable to assume you'd be much happier if he were gone. Or do you want "a lowdown, lying, two-faced, dumbass shitweasel" with a "dishonest character" who is "completely without credibility" continue as manager? I know I wouldn't. I don't think it matters much who manages this team. If the Mets want to give OTJ training to some affirmative-action case so they can feel free to hire lily-white managers far into the future, I can't stop them. ]I'm saying he made a mistake. He's probably made others. Gawrsh. Ya think, Sherlock?

RealityChuck Mar 15 2006 01:51 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="RealityChuck"] Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? . Nice standard of credibility, Chuck: That which is not impossible. But that's your argument: you assume it's impossible that he changed his mind. Here's the question you will undoubtedly avoid, but I'll ask anyway: Could he have changed his mind on the issue? Yes or no ]Okay, what WAS he doing? I have no idea. I can only speculate that he was trying to either pump up Matsui's value, or changed his mind. There are other possibilities, too. But you are automatically assuming that not only is he lying, but that's the only possibility. Clearly, there are many others. So why do you insist the only possiblity is that he's lying? ]No. I think they're so unimportant to you that you feel free to restate them before asking if your speculations match my opinions in any way. If you haven't noticed, I happen to be reading this thread, where seeing your opinions was unavoidable. I have not, however, bothered to go elsewhere to see what other venom you're spouting. ]I don't think it matters much who manages this team. Interesting. So if it doesn't matter, why does it matter what the manager says or if his comments are consistent? You're frothing at the mouth over something you don't think matters much. Odd.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 15 2006 02:03 PM

horace - it's good to see you back. Let's share a pumpkin ale some time, shall we?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 04:06 PM

RealityChuck wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"] RealityChuck wrote: Is it impossible that he changed his mind about the competition for second base? . Nice standard of credibility, Chuck: That which is not impossible. But that's your argument: you assume it's impossible that he changed his mind. And where did I say anything was possible or impossible? I just think that what happened was he told a whopper, that's all. ] Here's the question you will undoubtedly avoid, but I'll ask anyway: Could he have changed his mind on the issue? Yes or no Oh, lawyer's tricks. 'Just answer the question 'yes' or 'no' please--have you stopped beating your meat?' It's possible that he's never told a lie of any sort, ever. Quite possible.It's also entirely possible that you and I are residents of an alien culture, and are each disingeniously posting here to throw suspicion off our plans for conquest of planet Earth, before we beam our multi-headed forces down to Earth next Wednesday and begin devouring Earthling scum, beginning with Elster88. And wash it down with Guinness. ] "Okay, what WAS he doing?" I have no idea. I can only speculate that he was trying to either pump up Matsui's value, or changed his mind. There are other possibilities, too. But you are automatically assuming that not only is he lying, but that's the only possibility. Clearly, there are many others. So why do you insist the only possiblity is that he's lying? You'll have to find the passage for me where I say anything about possibility, other than to point out its foolishness in your writing here. ]"No. I think they're so unimportant to you that you feel free to restate them before asking if your speculations match my opinions in any way." If you haven't noticed, I happen to be reading this thread, where seeing your opinions was unavoidable. I have not, however, bothered to go elsewhere to see what other venom you're spouting. You've missed so much. ]"I don't think it matters much who manages this team." Interesting. So if it doesn't matter, why does it matter what the manager says or if his comments are consistent? You're frothing at the mouth over something you don't think matters much. Odd. That's not froth; it's Guinness.

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 04:19 PM

]It's also entirely possible that you and I are residents of an alien culture, and are each disingeniously posting here to throw suspicion off our plans for conquest of planet Earth, before we beam our multi-headed forces down to Earth next Wednesday and begin devouring Earthling scum, beginning with Elster88. And wash it down with Guinness. I go better with a single malt scotch.

Rotblatt Mar 15 2006 04:21 PM

Hm. or

Elster88 Mar 15 2006 04:23 PM

That's a scary animal. It would make a good mascot.

Vic Sage Mar 15 2006 04:40 PM

This recalls Bret's branding of Wilpon, etal, as liars for stating 2 years ago that David Wright wasn't ready yet, and the plan wasn't for him to make it this season, (or whatever the reporter said Freddie said), and so when David ended up having a hot start in the minors and was brought up ahead of schedule, it became evidence of the organization being a bunch of pernicious liars engaged in a massive deception (to what end? who knows.) at some point in his life, Bret must've been badly disappointed. So now he sees each press report as an opportunity to find a liar. It must be an amusing hobby... like finding a "nina" in a Hirshfeld.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 04:49 PM

Vic Sage wrote: (to what end? who knows.) You of all people have to ask which end? As if all threads don't conclude at the same person's fundament? It's curious what you say about Wright, because of course if they would have had the brains to promote Wright two springs ago, as he plainly deserved, and then if they would have had the courage to explain why they were doing it, and if they would have had the foresight and the scouting not to sign Kaz Matsui a few months before (thus crowding up their infield for Wright's entrance) none of this would have had happened in the first place. We'd have had Wright at 3b, Reyes at ss (no throw-your-star-rookie-at-a-position-he'd- never -played -before- for- some -retread- geek) and Wiggy at 2B (where would have put up the same O and D numbers as Matsui only much cheaper) all along.

Rotblatt Mar 15 2006 05:30 PM

Well, if we're going all hypothetical, chain reaction stuff, we'd ALSO probably still have: Huber platooning with Jake at 1B Castro at C, with Jake/Huber backing him up Kazmir rounding out a rotation of Petey, Glavine, Trachsel & Seo. Petit & Gaby Hernandez competing for role of long man in our pen (consisting of Wagner, Heilman, Bell, Hamulak & some scrub--who am I forgetting?). SS Reyes, B CF Beltran, B 3B Wright, R LF Floyd, L RF Cameron, R 1B Jake/Huber, L/R 2B Wiggy, R C Castro, Jake/Huber, R That's a decent lineup. Losing Delgado hurts, but Jake/Huber is a pretty decent platoon. Castro's no worse than LoDuca offensively, and probably better defensively. Wiggy's probably at least a slight improvement over Matsui, and Cameron/Diaz is an improvement over Nady/Diaz. IMO, the net loss on offense would be mostly offset through our pitching staff. Heilman would be relegated to setup man, but he'd be a damn good one--I'd guess better than Sanchez or Julio.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 06:08 PM

Yeah, this chain reaction stuff can get silly, I know, ("Now if we woulda moved Adam out of the garden of Eden entirely back in '00, and maybe put the serpent in instead, then maybe Eve would have....") but not quite as silly perhaps as saying "Couldn't have been helped, water under the bridge, what's past is past" over and over again when confronted with an inane series of counterproductive moves for a decade or so.

KC Mar 15 2006 06:10 PM

BS: >>>the scouting not to sign Kaz Matsu<<< I'm not going to research anything to perpetuate this charade of interest in objectively discussing the Mets, but wasn't Kaz like Baseball America's top one or two Mets prospects (of course prospect is loosely used) for 2004? He was up there, and they're pretty damn unbiased on this stuff.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 06:13 PM

And yet certain critics were opposed to signing a 28-year-old rookie shortstop to a high-priced contract with all sorts of no-trade provisions when we had a good, cheap, young shortstop at the time.

KC Mar 15 2006 06:14 PM

Yay, Bret.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 15 2006 06:20 PM

I'm sorry to see the fighting in this thread buried a rare appearance by Horace Osterdonk in almost no time. As always, deceptively lucid and just the right shade of orange.

KC Mar 15 2006 06:20 PM

And this is typical on your part, btw. You cite lack of scouting, someone points out that he wasn't scouted as all that bad, and then you change the discussion about certain onlookers (you, course) who knew better. Quit your day job, and go get a front office job ya freakin' genius.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 06:27 PM

Write me a letter of reference. Be sure to include the phrase "freaking genius," please.

KC Mar 15 2006 06:34 PM

BS: >>>Be sure to include the phrase "freaking genius"<<< Why? Oh, oh, oh - that's right - this is where you turn the tables that someone's picking on you. Sorry. Please change that to "baseball genius" My bad.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 06:39 PM

And before this discussion goes totally nuclear, let me point out that the introduction of David Wright into this thread, and the scouting of Kaz Matsui, came from Vic's post, not mine. I just responded to the line of thinking that he introduced. Or is another "When we introduce shit, Bret, stand there and take it. None of this defending your position stuff, please. Just dummy up and take the hits, damn it"?

KC Mar 15 2006 06:46 PM

Unbelievable.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 06:47 PM

And of course if you'd rather discuss the KC wrote: charade of interest in objectively discussing the Mets that I'm pretending to put on because of a deeply-flawed character, well, [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=2523] there's an appropriate place for that[/url]. Chrissakes, would you stop shitting up threads about the Mets and baseball to discuss my character defects, please? We've got a whole forum for that.

KC Mar 15 2006 07:11 PM

Dude, you said most of the CPF is often incompetent and dishonest in this thread and I can't say "freakin'" or gently question your motives in the thread that is on the card right now? Yeah, that sounds fair.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 07:29 PM

KC wrote: Dude, you said most of the CPF is often incompetent and dishonest in this thread and I can't say "freakin'" or gently question your motives in the thread that is on the card right now? Yeah, that sounds fair. Duuuude, I have no doubt that you see the unprinted words "I hate the CPF whose members are all corrupt and dishonest and I hate baseball and I hate life itself" under my user name in every post, but I never said anything of the kind in this thread. Take a breath. You can say the word freakin' all you like. I just wanted that included in the letter of reference, dude. As to questioning my motives--do you ever do anything else? We get it that you question my motives for posting, for breathing, for thinking. It's getting tiresome, you interjecting this shit into every thread. Why not put it in your sig line, or give me some useful CPF permanent marking (like having the words "stupid Met-hating asshole" under my username just above my post count, or something)? That would be less intrusive and certainly less repetitive. Dude.

KC Mar 15 2006 07:33 PM

And we "get" how you feel about us and the Mets.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 07:42 PM

No, I really don't think you do.

KC Mar 15 2006 07:54 PM

Incompetenet and dishonest, for starters. Oh excuse me, "for the most part".

cleonjones11 Mar 15 2006 08:11 PM

]"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right." --George Orwell Kinda like the idea that to sell someone you have to make them believe it was their idea in the first place. The Mets in my opinion are taking the wrong road towards winning aka the MFY school of buying enough mud and hoping some sticks on the wall. Seo for Duaner Sanchez Geez...what was Omar thinking..or drinking... Kaz Matsui 8 million dollars David Wright 350 thousand or something like that. odd..

cleonjones11 Mar 15 2006 08:12 PM

I just sold a baseball card to Heath Bells' brother..Hooray...

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:06 PM

KC wrote: Incompetenet and dishonest, for starters. Oh excuse me, "for the most part". If you keep saying that I said CPFers are incompetent and dishonest, I'll certainly be willing to consider that YOU are totally incompetent and dishonest. Show me where I said that in this thread, please. Do not repeat it again. You've already done that several times. I want you to cite the post where I said that CPFers are incompetent and dishonest. You should be able to do that easily, if you're competent and honest.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:13 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Yes, I often get worked up over displays of total incompetence and dishonesty that most CPFers find trivial or even examples of Metly virtue. What might have confused you was the above post, quoted in its entirety, where the "total incompetence and dishonesty" referred to is that of the Mets, not the CPF (as anyone who has a reading level above that of a nine-year-old will tell you), and in which I'm criticizing CPFers for being tolerant of the Mets' incompetence and dishonesty. If you're still confused, have Edgy explain how complicated sentences work. He enjoys that and you'll get something out of it as well. Ask him to talk slowly.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 15 2006 10:31 PM

And at the risk of redundancy, you are not the Mets. The Mets are a baseball team. You are some dweeb on the internet. When I criticize the Mets, I am criticizing a baseball team. If you choose to be offended and go off on some loopy jihad, and fire up your internet buddies ("Hey! This guy is making fun of US here, fellas! Are we going to take that sort of insult, and big words, and complex sentence structure? Hell, no, let's all turn this thread about baseball into a thread about how much Bret hates us, and mess up his chances of continuing to talk about the Mets! Yeah! Fuck, yeah! We don't have to take that kind of personal insult, fellas! Ji-HAAAD!"), well, I can't help you. Actually I think you may be beyond anyone's help. I'm beginning to think you may just be a dysfunctional sick bastard. Get some professional help, please.

Nymr83 Mar 15 2006 10:59 PM

]And at the risk of redundancy, you are not the Mets. The Mets are a baseball team. You are some dweeb on the internet. I've never heard a Mets fan talk like that, actually theres only one variety of fan i've ever heard talk like that: front-running yankee fans. everyone else indetifies with their team and says "we."

cleonjones11 Mar 15 2006 11:58 PM Bret Saberhagetic

You seem to be a touchy little Diva....

KC Mar 16 2006 07:56 AM

BS: Actually I think you may be beyond anyone's help. I'm beginning to think you may just be a dysfunctional sick bastard. Get some professional help, please. Thanks for the advice and kind words. Have a nice day.

Vic Sage Mar 17 2006 11:06 AM

can't we all jes' get along? and Bret, your response to my post was to point out how stupid Mets brass was... which was not my point. I'm not debating about whether they were right or wrong [There's no way to really know just by looking at it one decision, in retrospect. As chaos theory suggests, if a dung beetle farts in Iberia, there are Tsunamis in Okanawa (or something)]. my point wasn't whether they were WRONG or not. My point was that you can't go from thinking they're wrong to adjuding them LIARS. Well, i mean YOU can, and you've done it again here (which was the point of my sarcasm), but i can't and won't make such an arbitrary and defamatory leap of logic. Being wrong is bad enough. One doesn't need to find them to be evil as well.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 20 2006 09:02 AM

Vic Sage wrote: Bret, your response to my post was to point out how stupid Mets brass was... which was not my point. No, it was my point. I'm allowed to have points, aren't I? ] I'm not debating about whether they were right or wrong [There's no way to really know just by looking at it one decision, in retrospect. As chaos theory suggests, if a dung beetle farts in Iberia, there are Tsunamis in Okanawa (or something)]. There's no way to know anything, is there? By one decision or by a decade full of them. If you don't want to reach a conclusion, then you're free to insist that you need more information. As I'm free to insist that I have plenty of information, more than enough to characterize this team. ]my point wasn't whether they were WRONG or not. My point was that you can't go from thinking they're wrong to adjuding them LIARS. Yeah, in fact, I can and do. ] Well, i mean YOU can, That's better ] and you've done it again here (which was the point of my sarcasm), but i can't and won't make such an arbitrary and defamatory leap of logic. That's nice for you. And for all you drinkers of Koolaid out there. ]Being wrong is bad enough. One doesn't need to find them to be evil as well. One doesn't need to but one can. I think the time has long since passed when anyone would need to, but you'll come around whenever you come around. There's no need, or little possibility, of your reaching my conclusion any sooner than you feel like it. So why conclude that I need to reach your conclusion, and right now?