Master Index of Archived Threads


Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

batmagadanleadoff Jun 14 2018 04:48 PM

Got more than 40 minutes? Two on the Wilpons: one, a thinkpiece https://deadspin.com/the-mets-screwed-u ... 1826249290 the other a sprawling 42 minute read chronicling the entire history of Wilpon related fuckery. https://goodfundies.com/a-complete-hist ... c0055acaa2 You probably do not need to be a baseball fan to know that it is harder to build a winning roster when it’s unclear how much you can spend on it, or that it is unhelpful when professional baseball decision-makers can’t make even minor personnel decisions without the input of some crabby Long Island real estate scion ....

batmagadanleadoff Jun 14 2018 04:57 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Have some pity on Sandy, all you Alderson bashers.

Ceetar Jun 14 2018 05:30 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

I have zero trust in either of those sites, and don't care about the Wilpons, so no thanks.

d'Kong76 Jun 14 2018 05:41 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Deadspin is ok sometimes, but I'm not going there for my Mets news/opinions. G'fundies is a clever name, but I'm not investing a half hour reading stuff that's been chewed on for the last decade.

Centerfield Jun 14 2018 05:48 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

That deadspin article can't seem to focus on a central thesis. Or if it does I'm not getting it. Just kinda rambles and vents about the Wilpons. The good fundies article is just a collection of Wilpon factoids?

Vic Sage Jun 14 2018 06:25 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

That deadspin article can't seem to focus on a central thesis. Or if it does I'm not getting it. Just kinda rambles and vents about the Wilpons. central thesis: "More specifically, it’s because they have persistently mismanaged how they handle injuries and roster construction, because they have been both conservative and cheap about the drafts and trades and minor league scouting that should have provided organizational depth, and because they have continued to use their bench as a sort of hospice for aging veterans looking for a quiet and moderately dignified place to spend their last few MLB innings. All of those failures, to some extent or another, can quite readily be traced back to the strange, stubborn, curdled laziness of the people in charge of the franchise."

Ceetar Jun 14 2018 06:41 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

and because they have continued to use their bench as a sort of hospice for aging veterans Lol, is that in there? In previous years they've been criticized for having minor leaguers on the bench, and now they're criticized for having veterans? I mean, it's hard to find the kinda good guy that's not good enough to play regularly for anyone but somehow specifically good for you in a part time role. Unless you're talking like a good defensive sub that won't kill you like a Juan Lagares or a lefty masher that can fake it around the infield like Wilmer Flores, but the Mets don't have those guys because they're too cheap to give them what it'd cost to keep them here. It's that sorta hypocritical nonsense that key me in to this being just some more drum-beating narrative drivel. Whatever truth to how/where/what the team is mismanaging is lost in the noise.

d'Kong76 Jun 14 2018 06:48 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

central thesis: "More specifically, it’s because they have persistently mismanaged how they handle injuries and roster construction, because they have been both conservative and cheap about the drafts and trades and minor league scouting that should have provided organizational depth, and because they have continued to use their bench as a sort of hospice for aging veterans looking for a quiet and moderately dignified place to spend their last few MLB innings. All of those failures, to some extent or another, can quite readily be traced back to the strange, stubborn, curdled laziness of the people in charge of the franchise." That thickened up nicely, no roux required...

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 14 2018 07:39 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

That deadspin article can't seem to focus on a central thesis. Or if it does I'm not getting it. Just kinda rambles and vents about the Wilpons. central thesis: "More specifically, it’s because they have persistently mismanaged how they handle injuries and roster construction, because they have been both conservative and cheap about the drafts and trades and minor league scouting that should have provided organizational depth, and because they have continued to use their bench as a sort of hospice for aging veterans looking for a quiet and moderately dignified place to spend their last few MLB innings. All of those failures, to some extent or another, can quite readily be traced back to the strange, stubborn, curdled laziness of the people in charge of the franchise." I don;t agree with all of that but I thought the 'spin piece was good and refreshingly less over the top than I would have expected. The Good Fundies guy irritates me and I don't follow him anymore but that is a good compilation he put together. I wonder if he has a job. I'm tellin ya, a book about this called BAD STUFF BOUT THE METS would sell a billion copies

Ceetar Jun 14 2018 07:50 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm tellin ya, a book about this called BAD STUFF BOUT THE METS would sell a billion copies Would it? to the general fanbase or beyond? i imagine there's a lot of droll financial and 'wink wink' financial that might be an intriguing look behind the curtain if you're a very in depth Mets fan but would put you to sleep otherwise. They seem like such boring people. I don't even think you'd get like some weird juicy Jeff side hobby where he's like into photoshops of three-boobed women riding camels or something.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 14 2018 07:59 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm tellin ya, a book about this called BAD STUFF BOUT THE METS would sell a billion copies Would it? to the general fanbase or beyond? i imagine there's a lot of droll financial and 'wink wink' financial that might be an intriguing look behind the curtain if you're a very in depth Mets fan but would put you to sleep otherwise. They seem like such boring people. I don't even think you'd get like some weird juicy Jeff side hobby where he's like into photoshops of three-boobed women riding camels or something. My idea is actually to revisit a handful of big scandals and black eyes but tell them though the perspective of a fan. As an added bonus I will hire Greg W Prince to write it for me

G-Fafif Jun 14 2018 08:21 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: My idea is actually to revisit a handful of big scandals and black eyes but tell them though the perspective of a fan. As an added bonus I will hire Greg W Prince to write it for me I'm prepared to blurb at least, sight unseen. More than a 'by the numbers' recounting of all that's gone wrong across nearly six decades of foibles, flops and futility, Springer has found the sweet spot between lovable losers and nefarious nebishes and given us the whys and wherefores of what keeps holding the Mets back -- and what keeps Mets fans coming back for more, regardless of the latest thing to go Amazin'ly wrong.

d'Kong76 Jun 14 2018 08:28 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

A coffee table book based on the photoshopped images of Jeff in history would probably do well. Would probably get us sued too!

Mex17 Jun 14 2018 09:44 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Rules for being a true fan By Bill Simmons Loyalties Once you choose a team, you're stuck with that team for the rest of your life ... unless one of the following conditions applies: -Your team moves to another city. All bets are off when that happens. In fact, if you decided to turn off that sport entirely, nobody would blame you. -You grew up in a city that didn't field a team for a specific sport -- so you picked a random team -- and then either a.) your city landed a team, or b.) you moved to a city that fielded a team for that specific sport. For instance, one of my Connecticut buddies rooted for the Sixers during the Doctor J Era, then happened to be living in Orlando when the Magic came to town. Now he's a Magic fan. That's acceptable. -One of your immediate family members either plays professionally or takes a relevant management/coaching/front office position with a pro team. -You follow your favorite college star (and this has to be a once-in-a-generation favorite college star) to the pros and root for his team du jour ... like if you were a UNC fan for the past 20 years, and you rooted for the Bulls (because of MJ) and then the Raptors (because of Vince). Only works if there isn't a pro team in your area. -The owner of your favorite team treated his fans so egregiously over the years that you couldn't take it anymore -- you would rather not follow them at all then support a franchise with this owner in charge. Just for the record, I reached this point with the Boston Bruins about six years ago. When it happens, you have two options: You can either renounce that team and pick someone else, or you can pretend they're dead, like you're a grieving widow. That's what I do. I'm an NHL widow. I don't even want to date another team. So. . . it's there as an option.

Fman99 Jun 15 2018 01:22 AM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Ceetar wrote: where he's like into photoshops of three-boobed women riding camels or something.

metirish Jun 15 2018 03:19 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

There is and has been so much going on with the Mets it is hard to keep up, but , is this true-ish? The single biggest reason that the Mets are bad is that their best players haven’t played well or played enough, although again this misfortune is owed to familiar causes. There’s Yoenis Cespedes being forced to play through an obvious injury until it got worse, and then his rehab being mishandled until he hurt himself again;

Ceetar Jun 15 2018 04:02 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

metirish wrote: There is and has been so much going on with the Mets it is hard to keep up, but , is this true-ish? The single biggest reason that the Mets are bad is that their best players haven’t played well or played enough, although again this misfortune is owed to familiar causes. There’s Yoenis Cespedes being forced to play through an obvious injury until it got worse, and then his rehab being mishandled until he hurt himself again; I've seen no indication that playing made his injury worse, and he produced during that time. I also so no indication/proof/doctor's note that says that playing prevented it from healing. I mean, logic suggests he either couldn't have continued playing through the pain, or that it wouldn't heal until it was fully rested, but as he didn't immediately heal and come back, I'm not really sure that the right answer wasn't that he should've kept playing through it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 15 2018 04:12 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

I think the Mets are suspicious that Cespy is "goldbricking" and/or feel he's been less than dilligent in his obligation to them to stay healthy. They always look bad on stuff like this.

Ceetar Jun 15 2018 04:18 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the Mets are suspicious that Cespy is "goldbricking" and/or feel he's been less than dilligent in his obligation to them to stay healthy. They always look bad on stuff like this. I have no idea what type of pregame stretching/running/etc routine he does. It does feel like he's dealt with a lot of these nagging strains in his legs.. I don't know that we'll never know these types of things though nor with certainty whether Cespedes or the Mets decided he should try to play through it. In truth, it's probably inbetween, like most things. I doubt Cespedes was badgered into playing when he thought he couldn't, nor do i think the Mets were hard-line "Doc says it's minor, you WILL play!" Though I'm sure you could get a 'person familiar with the thinking' to assert either of those. Mets make plenty of mistakes, but the 'not healing as fast as we projected/hoped/were told' is one that I don't get the criticism for. Bodies are different, healing is different. stuff happens.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2018 04:27 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the Mets are suspicious that Cespy is "goldbricking" and/or feel he's been less than dilligent in his obligation to them to stay healthy. They always look bad on stuff like this. I have no reason to think the team is feeling this way but if they do they feel the way I've felt for about the last week or so. Grab a glove and a bat and get in there ya goldbrickin' pufnstuf!

Centerfield Jun 15 2018 05:15 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

The team’s approach to the draft is weirdly recursive and predictable for something that has not worked very well, but it probably reflects organizational malaise and lassitude more than it does a meddling owner. Still, a half decade of near-identical failures, especially in early rounds, have kept the team from building the young depth necessary for sustained success. I don't really understand the criticism here. Is it that the Mets are predictable? As far as I can tell I don't see any pattern in their draft picks. I just think they haven't picked all that well.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2018 05:24 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Centerfield wrote: The team’s approach to the draft is weirdly recursive and predictable for something that has not worked very well, but it probably reflects organizational malaise and lassitude more than it does a meddling owner. Still, a half decade of near-identical failures, especially in early rounds, have kept the team from building the young depth necessary for sustained success. I don't really understand the criticism here. Is it that the Mets are predictable? As far as I can tell I don't see any pattern in their draft picks. I just think they haven't picked all that well. They're predictable because, predictably, they draft lotsa busts every year.

Ceetar Jun 15 2018 06:24 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

Centerfield wrote: The team’s approach to the draft is weirdly recursive and predictable for something that has not worked very well, but it probably reflects organizational malaise and lassitude more than it does a meddling owner. Still, a half decade of near-identical failures, especially in early rounds, have kept the team from building the young depth necessary for sustained success. I don't really understand the criticism here. Is it that the Mets are predictable? As far as I can tell I don't see any pattern in their draft picks. I just think they haven't picked all that well. ahh, prospect projections. I dunno. They haven't really drafted well but I'm not sure they're that bad that isn't explained by luck/randomness? Like, did Valley Fever derail Ike Davis? Was Michael Conforto's capsule tear last year something they screwed up? Looking at the Alderson drafts, 2010 and 2011 seem pretty fair, or good. 2012 has been the real bomb, though there's hope in Plawecki and Cecchini I guess. 2013 was Smith. He's just really getting here now. Could still end up being a good pick. 2014 was Conforto. good pick, too early for a bunch of the others I guess. I dunno, criticizing the Mets drafting strategies seems an awfully lot like revisionist history.

Fman99 Jun 15 2018 06:28 PM Re: Going Short and Long on the Wilpons

There's nothing new in these reads. The Wilpons suck, therefore, the Mets suck. Or, perhaps, the Mets just suck because they suck. The Wilpons could own a manure franchise and that'd probably be a shit show too.