Master Index of Archived Threads


Willie and Pelfrey (split from Cubs KTE)

iramets May 15 2007 06:33 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Looks like it'll be Jason Vargas behind the Marauder's mask. They skipped his turn in the Zeffs rotation last nite. OK, Frayed Knot, NOW can Willie be a fucking clueless liar, or must we we wait until Vargas actually throws his first pitch Thursday?

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 07:23 AM

WTF are you talking about?

duan May 15 2007 07:51 AM

So, immediately after Mike Pelfrey had a bad start, Willie maintained support for his pitcher. This is both understandable and the right thing to do. However, with Moises Alou carrying a knock, they wanted immediate cover, which prompted them to re-evaluate the 25 man roster. HOW HARD IS THIS TO FIGURE OUT!

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2007 07:51 AM

iramets wrote: See your post of 9:33 PM (or as you'd say, of 21:33) on May 13 [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20] here[/url] Huh???? Here's what was said at 9:33 PM on May 13: ="Frayed Knot"]There's also the possiblity that if Alou needs to get DL'd then Pelfrey will be re-called to take his place. The injury would negate the 10-day rule. What does that have to do with lying and cluelessness?

iramets May 15 2007 08:01 AM

I was quoting Willie's confident retort to a reporter following Sunday's game about the possibility of Pelfrey being demoted, where Willie basically asserted, "No way, I love the kid, he's pitching great, you got to get your head kicked in sometimes to know how to pitch in this league, he ain't going nowhere and YES FOR CHRISSAKE Pelfrey's my Thursday starter, so get off my fucking case wouldja already???!!?!?!" I inquired as to whether Willie was lying or clueless in your opinions, since about 15 minutes after this statement, Pelfrey was on a plane to N.O., and FK opined the above, meaning that maybe Pelfrey IS the Thursday starter since through a technicallity he could conceivably avoid the mandatory 10-day minor league stay and you don't know that isn't the plan, Sal, so why don't you shut your fucking filthy lying mouth about my boy Willie before Willie and I come and shut it for you? Does that clear things up for you?

iramets May 15 2007 08:05 AM

duan wrote: So, immediately after Mike Pelfrey had a bad start, Willie maintained support for his pitcher. This is both understandable and the right thing to do. However, with Moises Alou carrying a knock, they wanted immediate cover, which prompted them to re-evaluate the 25 man roster. HOW HARD IS THIS TO FIGURE OUT! Very hard. The question was simply "Will Pelfrey be sent down?" to which the correct answer was "Yes, he will. We've already made the decision. He's being demoted" but Willie chose, for perverse reasons of his own, to give the angrier, more petulant answer paraphrased above. You can maintain that this is neither lying nor clueless, but I feel rather strongly that it must be one or the other.

Gwreck May 15 2007 08:07 AM

="iramets"]OK, Frayed Knot, NOW can Willie be a fucking clueless liar, or must we we wait until Vargas actually throws his first pitch Thursday? Willie can tell bold faced lies to the press until he's blue in the face. We still don't care. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

iramets May 15 2007 08:14 AM

iramets wrote: I was quoting Willie's confident retort to a reporter following Sunday's game I meant Saturday's game. Thanks, Gwreck, for that statement of CPF policy. I just like having that on the record, is all. You don't mind in the least when your manager opens his yap and lie after revolting lie comes out, because you're a loyal Mets fan. Please remember that, though, the next time someone cites good old reliable WIllie's word as authoritative and I tend to doubt it, as is often my wont.

seawolf17 May 15 2007 08:15 AM

It's also possible that Omar made the roster decision during the game, and didn't get a chance to tell Willie before Willie had a chance to speak with the press. Either way, who cares?

Gwreck May 15 2007 08:16 AM

="iramets"]. You don't mind in the least when your manager opens his yap and lie after revolting lie comes out, because you're a loyal Mets fan. I don't care because what gets told to the press is fundamentally irrelevant. Being a loyal Mets fan is -- believe it or not -- not a factor. Why do you care so much about what Willie says to the press?

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 08:17 AM

]FK opined ... that maybe Pelfrey IS the Thursday starter since through a technicallity he could conceivably avoid the mandatory 10-day minor league stay and you don't know that isn't the plan, Sal, so why don't you shut your fucking filthy lying mouth about my boy Willie before Willie and I come and shut it for you? I was merely speculating as to who would start on Thursday and pointing out how Pelfrey could still be an option despite being sent down. I neither heard what Willie said (and probably wouldn't have cared if I did) nor was responding to whatever perceived forked tonguery was causing your latest pain.

iramets May 15 2007 08:23 AM

If Willie has no input to roster moves, then his correct answer is "That's Omar's call." Look, folks, he was asked a simple direct question: "Will Pelfrey get sent down?" and his answer included his confident statement that Pelfrey would start Thursday's game. These word have specific meaning: "Pelfrey" means a specific pitcher, "Thursday" refers to a specific game, etc. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time figuring out whether he's clueless (which is what "It's Omar's call" implies) but can't say "I don't know," or lying. It's amusing to me how FK tried spinning it wiht his favorite tactic of "You don't KNOW, Ira, do you, that Pelfrey's not going to start Thursday's game because it hasn't happened yet? So Nyahh, nyahh na-NYAAHH ya on you."

iramets May 15 2007 08:25 AM

Gwreck wrote: Why do you care so much about what Willie says to the press? Because WIllie so rarely phones me up personally. Most of what I hear from Willie, I hear through some form of mass media. So when he lies to the press, he's lying to us, and I notice when I'm being lied to. You should try my non-Koolaid diet sometime.

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 08:27 AM

"It's amusing to me how FK tried spinning it wiht his favorite tactic of "You don't KNOW, Ira, do you, that Pelfrey's not going to start Thursday's game because it hasn't happened yet? So Nyahh, nyahh na-NYAAHH ya on you." I said nothing resembling that and wasn't even talking to you or about what you said or about what Willie said.

seawolf17 May 15 2007 08:32 AM

And if he says "it's Omar's call," then maybe he runs the possibility of losing his clubhouse, because he's not showing any confidence in his pitcher. Why does the comment have to be overanalyzed? The guy won 97 games last year, he's in first place, and his players have nothing but wonderful things to say about him. So what's the big whoop?

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2007 08:34 AM

="iramets"]You should try my non-Koolaid diet sometime. This is absurd. Not paying close attention to what Willie says isn't the same as believing every word as if it were gospel. I think your obsession with quotes from a baseball manager is bizarre. If I happen to read his quotes in the newspaper I quickly forget them. I don't spend my week in jittery anticipation of seeing Mike Pelfrey pitch on Thursday.

iramets May 15 2007 08:42 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 15 2007 08:52 AM

seawolf17 wrote: . So what's the big whoop? No big whoop. He's a lying incompetent dipshit who gives me yuks whenever he opens his stupid mouth and says things that are opposite from what he knows to be the truth, that's all. This whole thing started when I mildly pointed out that that what he said after Saturday's game was the opposite of what the Mets actually did after Saturday's game, and how no one had yet noticed that contradiction yet. FK jumping in to point out that, technically, I don't KNOW that Pelfrey will not be Thursday's starter just highlighted the CPF's general tendency to spin things in favor of the Mets whether they have any good reason to do or not.(FK's technicality turned out not to apply here anyway.)

Iubitul May 15 2007 08:44 AM

There's also the very real possibility that Willie didn't have a chance to tell Pelfrey, and preferred to tell him before telling the press. And if he told the press the truth before telling Pelfrey the same people would kill him for doing that. - It's a no win situation.

iramets May 15 2007 08:47 AM

="Yancy Street Gang"] ="iramets"]You should try my non-Koolaid diet sometime. This is absurd. Not paying close attention to what Willie says isn't the same as believing every word as if it were gospel. I think your obsession with quotes from a baseball manager is bizarre. If I happen to read his quotes in the newspaper I quickly forget them. I don't spend my week in jittery anticipation of seeing Mike Pelfrey pitch on Thursday. Now you're being absurd. If you weren;t paying close attention then you'd simply be thanking me for pointing out a small contradiction that you hadn't noticed because you don't pay attention when Willie yammers, or you hadn't tuned in your radio to that interview, or whatever. No harm, no foul, you can attach whatever significance you choose to my pointing out the contradiction. But when you post, as FK did, to point out a small technicality which makes barely possible the chance that Pelfrey will start Thursday's game, then you ARE choosing to defend your belief in what he says. And when that happens I get to argue back. Until you find this bannable behavior again, of course.

iramets May 15 2007 08:48 AM

Iubitul wrote: There's also the very real possibility that Willie didn't have a chance to tell Pelfrey, and preferred to tell him before telling the press. And if he told the press the truth before telling Pelfrey the same people would kill him for doing that. - It's a no win situation. "I'll have to get back to you on that." That's how you win. This ain't brain surgery, for people with an honest bone in their bodies.

Gwreck May 15 2007 08:56 AM

="iramets"] ="seawolf17"]. So what's the big whoop? No big whoop. He's a lying incompetent dipshit who gives me yuks whenever he opens his stupid mouth and says things that are opposite from what he knows to be the truth, that's all. Except he's not. His record speaks for itself. 97 wins and a division championship. If you want to evaluate the manager on things other than wins and losses, go right ahead, but understand that you'll need more than lies and inconsistencies to the PRESS.

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 08:58 AM

]FK opined ... that maybe Pelfrey IS the Thursday starter since through a technicallity he could conceivably avoid the mandatory 10-day minor league stay and you don't know that isn't the plan, Sal, so why don't you shut your fucking filthy lying mouth about my boy Willie before Willie and I come and shut it for you? ]FK tried spinning it wiht his favorite tactic of "You don't KNOW, Ira, do you, that Pelfrey's not going to start Thursday's game because it hasn't happened yet? So Nyahh, nyahh na-NYAAHH ya on you." ]But when you post, as FK did, to point out a small technicality which makes barely possible the chance that Pelfrey will start Thursday's game, then you ARE choosing to defend your belief in what he says. ]FK jumping in to point out that, technically, I don't KNOW that Pelfrey will not be Thursday's starter just highlighted the CPF's general tendency to spin things in favor of the Mets whether they have any good reason to do or not Considering that you now have mis-represented the reason for my post four times now in one thread, I now have doubts as to what Willie even said in the first place since we have nothing to go on at this point except for your word for it that he promised Pelfrey a start on Thursday, and your word is no longer worth anything.

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2007 08:59 AM

I'm not defending my belief in what he says. I don't weigh his words at all, so I neither believe nor disbelieve him. If anything I'm defending the absurd charge that we're a bunch of Willie apologists. If anything, we're (most of us, anyway) fairly apathetic about what he says. Clearly you're not, and that's fine. But when you slip into that "I'm the only one who's not a Kool Aid drinker" mode that you start to get insufferable. We're not the idiots you think we are. And you're doing us no favor by pointing out that you're trying to be helpful by pointing out that we're idiots. 'Nuff said!

iramets May 15 2007 09:08 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: ]FK opined ... that maybe Pelfrey IS the Thursday starter since through a technicallity he could conceivably avoid the mandatory 10-day minor league stay and you don't know that isn't the plan, Sal, so why don't you shut your fucking filthy lying mouth about my boy Willie before Willie and I come and shut it for you? ]FK tried spinning it wiht his favorite tactic of "You don't KNOW, Ira, do you, that Pelfrey's not going to start Thursday's game because it hasn't happened yet? So Nyahh, nyahh na-NYAAHH ya on you." ]But when you post, as FK did, to point out a small technicality which makes barely possible the chance that Pelfrey will start Thursday's game, then you ARE choosing to defend your belief in what he says. ]FK jumping in to point out that, technically, I don't KNOW that Pelfrey will not be Thursday's starter just highlighted the CPF's general tendency to spin things in favor of the Mets whether they have any good reason to do or not Considering that you now have mis-represented the reason for my post four times now in one thread, I now have doubts as to what Willie even said in the first place since we have nothing to go on at this point except for your word for it that he promised Pelfrey a start on Thursday, and your word is no longer worth anything. You haven;t demonstrated yet (nor could you) that I've falsified anything-- fortunately for you, you're in the one place on this planet that simply asserting that a Willie-basher is by definition a worthless liar is the best argument possible. Why would you jump in to point out that Willie could possibly start Pelfrey on Thrusday after having demoted him (inaccurately, as it turned out) if your motives were anything other than what I continue to claim they are? I mean, you even pretended not to understand WTF I was even talking about, so why should I trust you to remember anything? You just post bullshit, and then spin it and spin it, and when you're wrong, your response is "WTF are you talking about?"

cooby May 15 2007 09:12 AM

iramets wrote: ="Gwreck"]Why do you care so much about what Willie says to the press? Because WIllie so rarely phones me up personally. Most of what I hear from Willie, I hear through some form of mass media. So when he lies to the press, he's lying to us, and I notice when I'm being lied to. . I'm glad you said this, I was thinking along the same lines, but not nearly so amusingly

Rockin' Doc May 15 2007 11:19 AM

iramets - "You should try my non-Koolaid diet sometime." Not to start a multipaged thread over this, but curiosity compels me to seek answers to those questions that truly puzzle me. I remember you swearing off the Mets and pledging your loyalty to the Red Sox. Are you still Red Sox fan? Or (now that the Mets aren't the clueless bunch of losers that you had portrayed them to be when you jumped ship for the then defending World Champion Red Sox) are you a Mets fan once again? I sometimes have a hard time telling.

metirish May 15 2007 11:29 AM

Shouldn't this be titled "Ira and Willie"?...:)

soupcan May 15 2007 11:43 AM

I don't want to know about ira's willie.

Centerfield May 15 2007 11:44 AM

I'm not sure if lying or clueless are the only possibilities here. It could be that when Willie spoke, he absolutely intended to give Pelfrey another start, but after reevaluating Alou's injury, and the options he had, either he or Omar decided to go another direction. What I certainly think it demonstrates is that Willie is willing to change his mind even after making a public statement. And I think this is a good thing. I would want my manager or GM to be able to re-evaluate situations and not let prior statements constrain their actions. I guess if asked about it afterwards, I would hope for some honesty. "Yeah, I thought about it, and I changed my mind." But if it never comes, it's not a big deal to me. I never really give much credit to what is said in the media anyway. I find that too many times, unequivocal statements end up in backtracking anyway. "We don't need Mike Piazza, we have a catcher." "Our team would never give Clemens such concessions." Blah blah fucking blah. All these guys say stuff that makes it seem like they have standards and loyalty and guidelines...but in the end, they all end up doing whatever serves them best.

Nymr83 May 15 2007 11:51 AM

]Why would you jump in to point out that Willie could possibly start Pelfrey on Thrusday after having demoted him (inaccurately, as it turned out) I'm pretty sure he can as long as Pelfrey replaces someone on theroster is being placed on the DL (Alou)

iramets May 15 2007 11:59 AM

Rockin' Doc wrote: iramets - "You should try my non-Koolaid diet sometime." Not to start a multipaged thread over this, but curiosity compels me to seek answers to those questions that truly puzzle me. I remember you swearing off the Mets and pledging your loyalty to the Red Sox. Are you still Red Sox fan? Or (now that the Mets aren't the clueless bunch of losers that you had portrayed them to be when you jumped ship for the then defending World Champion Red Sox) are you a Mets fan once again? I sometimes have a hard time telling. No, I still don't like the Mets very much (with some individuals excepted--Reyes and Wright and Maine, for instance), but I get a lot of them on my radio, TV, and I know the team and organization very well, so I follow them without really caring if they win or lose. I admire the Sox' way of running a ballclub and spending their money and their effort in a sensible way, and I admire them for expressing their ideas in a way that often approaches comprehensibility. But I'm not quite sure where all the interest in my own loyalties lie. Do we need to come back to this subject whenever I voice critical remarks about the Mets' blatent dishonesty? If so, we'll be discussing that subject an awful lot, and I don't want to hear that it's me who keeps returning to the subject of me. I'd rather talk about the Mets, but if you want the main subject to be me, then please take the heat for making that the main subject around here. My interest here is, to me, a real one: was Willie lying when he mistated the Mets' intentions about sending Pelfrey to AAA Saturday afternoon, or was he clueless? if he was lying--meaning that he knew perfectly well what the team was planning to do, but said the opposite (and heatedly) anyway, that's perhaps of interest to discuss: why would he want to do that? I'm sure there are reasons why managers tell lies to the press, but it's obviously not helping the media to convey Willie's pronouncements as factual, which he sometimes wants them to do. Or was he clueless, meaning that his involvement in roster decisions is minimal, and perhaps he wanted to keep Pelfrey but Omar said "No." What does this tell you about Willie's standing in the Mets organization? Is his stature less than he thinks it is, or than he wants us to think it is? We've all seen underlings on the job pretending to have more clout than they do. Generally, these people are slightly comic and slightly despicable, and most of their co-workers correctly view them with mild contempt? Is "mild contempt" appropriate for Willie? Is he properly a subject of derision for his inability to mouth the words "Those decisions are made at the GM's level--I have no say, really, in players getting sent down or brought up." If this is the case, does this insecurity manifest itself in other, more baseball-related, ways? Does an insecure manager tend, for example, to make 'book' decisions rather than creative ones because he catches fiercer criticism if the creative decision goes bad? I think the whole discussion of Lying Or Clueless is an interesting one, but certain people use it as an occasion to denigrate my character, or to deny that either is an option because of their abiding loyalty to the Mets organization. (Suggesting that their favorite baseball team employs miscreants, liars, steroid-users, glory-hogs, morons, two-faced weasels, etc. tends to make their skulls asplode, and we can't have that.) I think it's likely that Randolph is a deeply flawed human being, from what vibes he gives off in his public pronouncements, and I enjoy calling his flaws to your attention. If you defend him in a reasonable way, I'm glad to disagree and maybe I'll even learn something. If you insist on defending him in ways that I find baldly indefensible, then I will take some amusement from that.

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 12:21 PM

"You haven;t demonstrated yet (nor could you) that I've falsified anything" What I have done is pointed out that you've - five times now - assigned a motive to my simple speculation about Thursday's starter that I didn't intend. And, seeing as how you have no qualms about assigning an agenda to my statements, why shouldn't I think you would do so to Willie's statement(s) also? " fortunately for you, you're in the one place on this planet that simply asserting that a Willie-basher is by definition a worthless liar is the best argument possible." I have no idea what that means "Why would you jump in to point out that Willie could possibly start Pelfrey on Thrusday after having demoted him (inaccurately, as it turned out) if your motives were anything other than what I continue to claim they are?" Because I was doing nothing more than ticking off a possibility. "I mean, you even pretended not to understand WTF I was even talking about, so why should I trust you to remember anything?" Because I didn't realize that starting Pelfrey on Thursday was part of my agenda. I should have checked with you first. "You just post bullshit, and then spin it and spin it, and when you're wrong, your response is "WTF are you talking about?" Didn't post bullshit, made no attempt to spin anything, and had no earthly idea why you dragged my "name" into a discussion of something I never heard Willie say.

Rotblatt May 15 2007 12:38 PM

I just wanted to tick the "Don't care what Willie says to the media" box. What matters to me is whether Willie is being as honest and forthright as possible to the players and to his boss, Omar. The problem there is, it's almost impossible to tell if he's doing that, although given the sheer quantity of rags in this town, we'd probably--but not necessarily--hear about it if a player got pissed off at Willie. In this specific case, if Willie's announcement to the media caused Pelfrey to think he would start on Thursday, well, then, I care about that. I'd hope that he talked to Pelfrey first (something like, "I still have faith in you kid, but I don't know what we're doing with you yet. We might want you to work on your control in New Orleans for a little while"), but if not, he clearly owed Pelfrey an apology and an explanation. I also, obviously, care about Willie's performance on the field, and for the most part, I think he's been doing a credible job this season. I've said this before, but I think he's getting better in terms of tactics as he gains experience, and from all accounts, he's got the respect of his players, which is always a good thing.

iramets May 15 2007 12:39 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: [no earthly idea why you dragged my "name" into a discussion of something I never heard Willie say. It's a little more than that by now. Now, we're actively asserting that I probably invented the entire interview, right? If you care to make it interesting for me, we could have some fun. If I can produce quotes from the interview on Saturday, of Willie's assertions that Pelfrey is the Thursday starter, would you be willing to wear the badge of "Koolaid-swilling defender of Willie Randolph's delusional mouth" on your sig line for the next month?

Gwreck May 15 2007 12:42 PM

iramets wrote: But I'm not quite sure where all the interest in my own loyalties lie. Do we need to come back to this subject whenever I voice critical remarks about the Mets' blatent dishonesty? ]I think it's likely that Randolph is a deeply flawed human being, from what vibes he gives off in his public pronouncements, and I enjoy calling his flaws to your attention. You just answered your own question.

iramets May 15 2007 12:45 PM

Rotblatt wrote: I just wanted to tick the "Don't care what Willie says to the media" box. What matters to me is whether Willie is being as honest and forthright as possible to the players and to his boss, Omar. The problem there is, it's almost impossible to tell if he's doing that, although given the sheer quantity of rags in this town, we'd probably--but not necessarily--hear about it if a player got pissed off at Willie. In this specific case, if Willie's announcement to the media caused Pelfrey to think he would start on Thursday, well, then, I care about that. I'd hope that he talked to Pelfrey first (something like, "I still have faith in you kid, but I don't know what we're doing with you yet. We might want you to work on your control in New Orleans for a little while"), but if not, he clearly owed Pelfrey an apology and an explanation. I also, obviously, care about Willie's performance on the field, and for the most part, I think he's been doing a credible job this season. I've said this before, but I think he's getting better in terms of tactics as he gains experience, and from all accounts, he's got the respect of his players, which is always a good thing. You make a good point, Rot. The crap about Willie's misstatement to the press protecting Pelfrey's delicate feelings swings the other way too: what if Pelfrey were sitting in his locker listening to the radio, and hearing that he was going to start on Thursday vs the Cubs, and THEN he got shot down in Willie's office fifteen minutes afterward? The more I think about it, the simpler the answer gets: Willie lied because that's his character. Given the choice between the truth and some delusional bullshit, Willie goes for the BS every time. He's just a Yankee, through and through, I guess, full of arogance and superiority and contempt for everyone around him. I guess I just can't root for a team run on Yankee principles. I'm surprised so many of you can.

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 12:54 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 15 2007 12:55 PM

"It's a little more than that by now. Now, we're actively asserting that I probably invented the entire interview, right?" I didn't say he didn't address the subject, only that I didn't hear it and it had nothing to do with what I said. I was merely speculating that if the temporary Alou injury became more permanant (needing a DL stint) it could put Pelfrey back into the mix. "If you care to make it interesting for me, we could have some fun. If I can produce quotes from the interview on Saturday, of Willie's assertions that Pelfrey is the Thursday starter, would you be willing to wear the badge of "Koolaid-swilling defender of Willie Randolph's delusional mouth" on your sig line for the next month?" What does anything I said have to do with Kool-Aid drinking? I don't care what he said, I wasn't defending what he said, and wasn't addressing what he said.

seawolf17 May 15 2007 12:55 PM

Sal, the guy won 97 games last year! You're telling me he's a bad manager, or a "deeply flawed human being" because he deals with the media the same way that almost every other celebrity in the history of time has dealt with the media?!?! This has nothing to do with your fandom or not, it has to do with you thinking this is some sort of black or white issue with only two possible reasons, and that's fallacious.

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2007 01:00 PM

Some people just don't see shades of grey, and Ira appears to be one of them. George W. Bush is another.

Nymr83 May 15 2007 02:38 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ]Why would you jump in to point out that Willie could possibly start Pelfrey on Thrusday after having demoted him (inaccurately, as it turned out) I'm pretty sure he can as long as Pelfrey replaces someone on theroster is being placed on the DL (Alou) still waiting to hear what was inaccurate about that...

Willets Point May 15 2007 02:44 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Some people just don't see shades of grey, and Ira appears to be one of them. George W. Bush is another. Right or wrong, black or white Cross the line your gonna pay In the dawn before the light Live and die by the shades of gray.

Vic Sage May 15 2007 03:01 PM

Ira is reverting to his typical rhetorical device (and logically flawed argument) referred to as the fallacy of false alternatives. "Its either A or B", where both alternatives are damning, without considering the reasonable possibility of other less damning alternatives. Centerfield raises the possiblity of C... they changed their mind after considering new information. In any event, the only thing Willie owes me as a fan is to do everything he can to help the team win. So, even if he lied to the press, isn't it just as plausible that he did so to protect his player? After all, which is more damaging... for a rookie to learn that he's been sent down by hearing his manager tell that to the media, OR, for him to hear his manager express confidence in him to the media, even if afterwards the manager has to call the kid in and say "i think you're going to be a star, but we need to bring an OFer up right now to protect Alou, and you need to stop trying so hard, so we've decided to send you down for a while. But don't worry... start hitting your spots and you'll be back in no time." So, rather than exposing the terrible character flaw of an incompetent or evil person, the actions could simply have demonstrated a change of mind or a valid managerial strategy. And there may be other plausible, equally reasonable alternatives (D, E, F, etc), so why draw such damning conclusions about Mr. Randolph's character? Because it fits Ira's agenda, and rhetorical style, to do so. That he would accuse FK of doing exactly that is the height of "projection", since FK is constantly adding valid technical info to any discussion, and rarely if ever has any particular axe to grind, while IRA grinds axes like a Beserker's blacksmith.

Willets Point May 15 2007 03:04 PM

Outstanding analysis Mr. Sage.

iramets May 15 2007 03:20 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Ira is reverting to his typical rhetorical device (and logically flawed argument) referred to as the fallacy of false alternatives. "Its either A or B", where both alternatives are damning, without considering the reasonable possibility of other less damning alternatives. Centerfield raises the possiblity of C... they changed their mind after considering new information. In any event, the only thing Willie owes me as a fan is to do everything he can to help the team win. So, even if he lied to the press, isn't it just as plausible that he did so to protect his player? After all, which is more damaging... for a rookie to learn that he's been sent down by hearing his manager tell that to the media, OR, for him to hear his manager express confidence in him to the media, even if afterwards the manager has to call the kid in and say "i think you're going to be a star, but we need to bring an OFer up right now to protect Alou, and you need to stop trying so hard, so we've decided to send you down for a while. But don't worry... start hitting your spots and you'll be back in no time." So, rather than exposing the terrible character flaw of an incompetent or evil person, the actions could simply have demonstrated a change of mind or a valid managerial strategy. And there may be other plausible, equally reasonable alternatives (D, E, F, etc), so why draw such damning conclusions about Mr. Randolph's character? Because it fits Ira's agenda, and rhetorical style, to do so. That he would accuse FK of doing exactly that is the height of "projection", since FK is constantly adding valid technical info to any discussion, and rarely if ever has any particular axe to grind, while IRA grinds axes like a Beserker's blacksmith. Fucking bullshit, sir. Have I precluded others from proposing their superior alternatives? No, I have not. I simply listed mine. Your rhetorical strategy is apparently to paint mine as black and white, and then to accuse me of glorifying in it. If you';d like to argue--in this case, that would mean offering a third and fourth and fifth plausible alternative to "lying" or "clueless"-- I'll argue fiercely back. Just saying "Ira over simplifies--the correct answer to take from his rhetorical ineptness on Saturday is 'Willie is an exemplary human being, one I'd trust with my wife and daughter'" doesn't begin to qualify as a counter-argument.

Nymr83 May 15 2007 03:21 PM

you still havent answered me sal and i'm the only one NOT insulting you... can you or can you not call pelfrey back up if you place a guy on the DL? you seem to have indicated not and i think thats wrong

iramets May 15 2007 03:27 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: ]Why would you jump in to point out that Willie could possibly start Pelfrey on Thrusday after having demoted him (inaccurately, as it turned out) I'm pretty sure he can as long as Pelfrey replaces someone on theroster is being placed on the DL (Alou) still waiting to hear what was inaccurate about that... What's inaccurate is that (assuming the Mets are allowed to do this move, which I'm not sure they can) they haven't done it, so Willie's falsehoods continue as falsehoods. If Willie were to have claimed Pelfrey is his Thursday starter and then to have shot Pelfrey in the heart, FK would have jumped in and informed me that "It's possible that he'll still make his start on Thursday as promised because the Mets have got a Resurrection plan." So the only way for me to demonstrate that it was a lie is to wait until Thursday, apparently, to point it out (at which point it will qualify as "Who cares, it's old news." There are only two categories that FK recognizes: "You can't prove that yet" and "Everybody knows that, but it's old news and who cares any more." Both are spoken with a Nyahh-nya na-NAH-nyahh rhythm, BTW.

iramets May 15 2007 03:30 PM

Nymr83 wrote: you still havent answered me sal and i'm the only one NOT insulting you... can you or can you not call pelfrey back up if you place a guy on the DL? you seem to have indicated not and i think thats wrong No, I have consistently stated that I don't know if you can make that move or not. Since FK asserted that he thinks you can make that move, why not address this question to him? If you can make the move, though, is it really sound to mess with a young player's head like that? "Pelfrey, get your ass down to Triple-A! Ha, ha, just kidding you're being sent down, but we still want to start on Thursday! Ha, ha." Would that be cruel and foolish and stupid or what?

duan May 15 2007 06:57 PM

iramets wrote: ="Nymr83"]you still havent answered me sal and i'm the only one NOT insulting you... can you or can you not call pelfrey back up if you place a guy on the DL? you seem to have indicated not and i think thats wrong No, I have consistently stated that I don't know if you can make that move or not. Since FK asserted that he thinks you can make that move, why not address this question to him? If you can make the move, though, is it really sound to mess with a young player's head like that? "Pelfrey, get your ass down to Triple-A! Ha, ha, just kidding you're being sent down, but we still want to start on Thursday! Ha, ha." Would that be cruel and foolish and stupid or what? as usual you jump around so much that there's a scatter gun approach here which means that there's SOME relevance to everything you say but it's all so jumbled with an irrational disposition that it you get nowhere. Here's what i'd like you to consider; Here's how the timelines work for me ; 1. Saturday game, Mike Pelfrey has a poor start 2. Saturday game (6th inning) Moises Alou hurts his leg 3. Saturday directly post game: Willie is directly asked about Pelfrey he says as far as he's concerned he's still in the rotation 4. SUNDAY am: Mets ponder (or have last night) the situation. Alou's hurt, definitely going to be out a few days, might need dl. Pelfrey MIGHT benefit from some time at AAA. 5. Mets reach decision: team's immediate needs best served by a) having right handed outfield option up in Carlos Gomez b) Pelfrey's development may need to continue by having some more time at AAA c) El Duque's due back in couple of weeks, now MIGHT be the time to see what we've got in Vargas OR if Sele can translate his relative bullpen success into starts. d) IF Moises Alou has to go on DL, we can (and YES this is allowed) bring Pelfrey back up. Ok, do you think this is impossible/improbable/possible/probable (of course we can't know for certain but that's the nature of the world)? For me I see a logical chain of events that people have reacted to, i'm not saying i'd have done what they did, but I can see a clear thought process. Yet your immediate thing is "Willie Randolph is either a lier or clueless". To be honest, it's just exposing you as being willfully boorish and over aggressive.

Frayed Knot May 15 2007 08:53 PM

"There are only two categories that FK recognizes: "You can't prove that yet" and "Everybody knows that, but it's old news and who cares any more." Oooh cool, a SIXTH time that words I never said have been put into my mouth in just one thread. That may be a record even for ira. ]3. Saturday directly post game: Willie is directly asked about Pelfrey he says as far as he's concerned he's still in the rotation Y'see, the problem with your option here Duan is that ira tends to hear things only in absolutes. So Willie didn't say anything like "as far as I'm concerned Pelfrey is still in the rotation", but rather he made a solemn promise that he would start again, a promise that if it turns out to be untrue must be treated as a lie of Watergate-like importance and taken to heart as if your date reneged on a prom invite.

iramets May 15 2007 09:57 PM

duan wrote: ="iramets"] ="Nymr83"]you still havent answered me sal and i'm the only one NOT insulting you... can you or can you not call pelfrey back up if you place a guy on the DL? you seem to have indicated not and i think thats wrong No, I have consistently stated that I don't know if you can make that move or not. Since FK asserted that he thinks you can make that move, why not address this question to him? If you can make the move, though, is it really sound to mess with a young player's head like that? "Pelfrey, get your ass down to Triple-A! Ha, ha, just kidding you're being sent down, but we still want to start on Thursday! Ha, ha." Would that be cruel and foolish and stupid or what? as usual you jump around so much that there's a scatter gun approach here which means that there's SOME relevance to everything you say but it's all so jumbled with an irrational disposition that it you get nowhere. Here's what i'd like you to consider; Here's how the timelines work for me ; 1. Saturday game, Mike Pelfrey has a poor start 2. Saturday game (6th inning) Moises Alou hurts his leg 3. Saturday directly post game: Willie is directly asked about Pelfrey he says as far as he's concerned he's still in the rotation 4. SUNDAY am: Mets ponder (or have last night) the situation. Alou's hurt, definitely going to be out a few days, might need dl. Pelfrey MIGHT benefit from some time at AAA. 5. Mets reach decision: team's immediate needs best served by a) having right handed outfield option up in Carlos Gomez b) Pelfrey's development may need to continue by having some more time at AAA c) El Duque's due back in couple of weeks, now MIGHT be the time to see what we've got in Vargas OR if Sele can translate his relative bullpen success into starts. d) IF Moises Alou has to go on DL, we can (and YES this is allowed) bring Pelfrey back up. Ok, do you think this is impossible/improbable/possible/probable (of course we can't know for certain but that's the nature of the world)? For me I see a logical chain of events that people have reacted to, i'm not saying i'd have done what they did, but I can see a clear thought process. Yet your immediate thing is "Willie Randolph is either a lier or clueless". To be honest, it's just exposing you as being willfully boorish and over aggressive. Your vote for "clueless" has been recorded, Duan. WR: "I don't know where it come from, I was just walking through the clubhouse, minding my own business, and all of a sudden it hit me, this gigantic idea that I might actually, you know, demote the young pitcher who's been struggling, you know, the same one that the stupid reporter asked me that impertinent question about just a few hours earlier, and all of a sudden I realized HOLY COW maybe I just WILL, you know, what's the word again, DEMOTE the fucking guy. It was amazing, it was astonishing, it was flabbergasting, I tell ya, this idea, and I never saw it coming, not even for a second when I was being asked a direct question about the possibility." For the sake of those dim-minded nitwits who might not realize this on their own, the above dialogue is being attributed to Willie Randolph for satirical puposes only. That is to say (and I beg the pardon of any readers who are not actually mentally retarded here) I am not claiming that Randolph really said the above words, merely that, in the unlikely event that he didn't understand the concept while he was honestly answering the reporter's direct question about possibly demoting Pelfrey, these words might accurately characterize IMO his actual opinion. I do this sometimes, and people who don't need to breathe through their mouths and have had three or four consecutive thoughts without their brains asploding often realize what being "satirized" means. To the literal-minded, I offer my apologies and a free ticket to any good fourth-grade remedial reading program.

martin May 15 2007 11:09 PM

this thread had me feeling down, but i listened to some of L-mills stuff and it cheered me up. http://www.souljaboirecords.com/index.htm they doin that shit big.

iramets May 16 2007 12:07 AM

Marty! Baby! how ya been ? I was just thinking of you in the context of " I like it when Willie lies to the commie press!" You're my poster boy for 'LYING TO THE PRESS IS A VIRTUE!" This thread has needed your valuable input.

duan May 16 2007 02:33 AM

iramets wrote: ="duan"] iramets wrote: ="Nymr83"]you still havent answered me sal and i'm the only one NOT insulting you... can you or can you not call pelfrey back up if you place a guy on the DL? you seem to have indicated not and i think thats wrong No, I have consistently stated that I don't know if you can make that move or not. Since FK asserted that he thinks you can make that move, why not address this question to him? If you can make the move, though, is it really sound to mess with a young player's head like that? "Pelfrey, get your ass down to Triple-A! Ha, ha, just kidding you're being sent down, but we still want to start on Thursday! Ha, ha." Would that be cruel and foolish and stupid or what? as usual you jump around so much that there's a scatter gun approach here which means that there's SOME relevance to everything you say but it's all so jumbled with an irrational disposition that it you get nowhere. Here's what i'd like you to consider; Here's how the timelines work for me ; 1. Saturday game, Mike Pelfrey has a poor start 2. Saturday game (6th inning) Moises Alou hurts his leg 3. Saturday directly post game: Willie is directly asked about Pelfrey he says as far as he's concerned he's still in the rotation 4. SUNDAY am: Mets ponder (or have last night) the situation. Alou's hurt, definitely going to be out a few days, might need dl. Pelfrey MIGHT benefit from some time at AAA. 5. Mets reach decision: team's immediate needs best served by a) having right handed outfield option up in Carlos Gomez b) Pelfrey's development may need to continue by having some more time at AAA c) El Duque's due back in couple of weeks, now MIGHT be the time to see what we've got in Vargas OR if Sele can translate his relative bullpen success into starts. d) IF Moises Alou has to go on DL, we can (and YES this is allowed) bring Pelfrey back up. Ok, do you think this is impossible/improbable/possible/probable (of course we can't know for certain but that's the nature of the world)? For me I see a logical chain of events that people have reacted to, i'm not saying i'd have done what they did, but I can see a clear thought process. Yet your immediate thing is "Willie Randolph is either a lier or clueless". To be honest, it's just exposing you as being willfully boorish and over aggressive. Your vote for "clueless" has been recorded, Duan. WR: "I don't know where it come from, I was just walking through the clubhouse, minding my own business, and all of a sudden it hit me, this gigantic idea that I might actually, you know, demote the young pitcher who's been struggling, you know, the same one that the stupid reporter asked me that impertinent question about just a few hours earlier, and all of a sudden I realized HOLY COW maybe I just WILL, you know, what's the word again, DEMOTE the fucking guy. It was amazing, it was astonishing, it was flabbergasting, I tell ya, this idea, and I never saw it coming, not even for a second when I was being asked a direct question about the possibility." For the sake of those dim-minded nitwits who might not realize this on their own, the above dialogue is being attributed to Willie Randolph for satirical puposes only. That is to say (and I beg the pardon of any readers who are not actually mentally retarded here) I am not claiming that Randolph really said the above words, merely that, in the unlikely event that he didn't understand the concept while he was honestly answering the reporter's direct question about possibly demoting Pelfrey, these words might accurately characterize IMO his actual opinion. I do this sometimes, and people who don't need to breathe through their mouths and have had three or four consecutive thoughts without their brains asploding often realize what being "satirized" means. To the literal-minded, I offer my apologies and a free ticket to any good fourth-grade remedial reading program. i'm not going to bother anymore, because you clearly can't be bothered to actually discuss something.

iramets May 16 2007 04:22 AM

You really don't see how your post was a vote for "clueless"? Here's how the scoring was derived: You asked me to believe that Willie's interview answer preceded any serious consideration he was having of demoting Pelfrey. That's a stretch, innit? You're telling me that Willie walked from the interview to a room with Omar and the heavy hitters, and they explained terms to him like "What the DL Means", "The Difference Between MLB and the Minors," "Moises' Boo-Boo," "Why Pelfrey's Performance has Been Disappointing" (with all sorts of colored charts, pie graphs, etc.). and he came to the conclusion that these circumstances might allow for the move that he had just finished denying vigorously nevertheless being made immediately. Like I say, Mebbe so, but that does create the possibility that Willie's not the smartest pigeon in the coop.

metsmarathon May 16 2007 07:55 AM

do you really expect to hear willie, or any manager, ever say in a post game interview about a your pitcher who is struggling, "y'know, he's been struggling lately, and while we've been thinking long and hard about whether or not to keep him here, or rather send him down to the minors to work on some stuff. we've been discussing it long and hard, me and the gm and the rest of the braintrust, and while there's clearly a strong undercurrent that if he doesn't get his shit together, and i mean, soon, he could be on the next bus to new orleans. right now, we're leaning more towards keeping him in the rotation, and i'd prefer that he stays here with the team. however, as you know, alou is pretty banged up, and we need to reevaluate his condition. we might need to bring in an extra outfielder, and if we do, and mind you, omar and i need to talk this over, but if we do, there's a good chance that pelfrey will be the one to get sent down to the minors. now, please, if you don't mind, i haven't had a chance to talk to mike about this and if we do have to send him to the minors, i'd prefer to be the one to tell him, instead of having him hear from it from the media. so when you go out there to talk to the players, please don't bring any of this 'maybe sending him to the minors' stuff to his attention, at least not until tomorrow, when omar and i'll have had a chance to talk this out, and figure what we're going to do with the outfield, and subsequently the rotation. so mums the word you guys. thanks." do you really expect to hear that? more importantly, do you expect the manager, any manager, to be meeting with his general manager, any general manager, to discuss upcoming transactions either during or immediately following a game, so that they will have had an opportunity to report out with certainty and clarity whether or not there will be any moves in the coming days or hours, and also to inform the relevant players, prior to actually speaking to the media? or wouldn't it be more fruitful to have deliberate, meaningful discussions about the future of the team and a top prospect? you'd rather the team not needlessly rush important decisions, wouldn't you? do you really expect us to believe that willie is so simple-minded that he is capable only of binary thought? that when he says that pelfrey's in the rotation, that he is incapable of holding any reservations or doubt as to the matter? that he's not capable of internal indecision or ambiguity? that from the instant that pelfrey is in the rotation, that willie is unable to ponder any circumstance or possibility that pelfrey might not stay in the rotation, until that decision is made for him by the bigwigs, and then he flips a little mental switch whereby it is now impossible for him to envision any circumstance whereby pelfrey might find his way back into the rotation? in his brain, players are either locked into the major leagues, or they're in the minors, and nobody anywhere, or at least not on his team, can alter their lot, at least until the bigwigs say so?

Benjamin Grimm May 16 2007 07:58 AM

I saw in the paper this morning that Willie said that "maybe" Vargas will start on Thursday. I cringed, because now if Vargas doesn't start, this thread will get even more bizarre.

metsmarathon May 16 2007 08:00 AM

jeez, what an idiot willie is. either he will start or he won't start. how does he not know?

seawolf17 May 16 2007 08:53 AM

TheOldMole May 16 2007 09:09 AM

Here's a thought. Willie doesn't have to tell everything he knows to the media.

iramets May 16 2007 10:13 AM

="metsmarathon"]do you really expect to hear willie, or any manager, ever say in a post game interview about a your pitcher who is struggling, "y'know, he's been struggling lately, and while we've been thinking long and hard about whether or not to keep him here, or rather send him down to the minors to work on some stuff. we've been discussing it long and hard, me and the gm and the rest of the braintrust, and while there's clearly a strong undercurrent that if he doesn't get his shit together, and i mean, soon, he could be on the next bus to new orleans. right now, we're leaning more towards keeping him in the rotation, and i'd prefer that he stays here with the team. however, as you know, alou is pretty banged up, and we need to reevaluate his condition. we might need to bring in an extra outfielder, and if we do, and mind you, omar and i need to talk this over, but if we do, there's a good chance that pelfrey will be the one to get sent down to the minors. now, please, if you don't mind, i haven't had a chance to talk to mike about this and if we do have to send him to the minors, i'd prefer to be the one to tell him, instead of having him hear from it from the media. so when you go out there to talk to the players, please don't bring any of this 'maybe sending him to the minors' stuff to his attention, at least not until tomorrow, when omar and i'll have had a chance to talk this out, and figure what we're going to do with the outfield, and subsequently the rotation. so mums the word you guys. thanks." do you really expect to hear that? more importantly, do you expect the manager, any manager, to be meeting with his general manager, any general manager, to discuss upcoming transactions either during or immediately following a game, so that they will have had an opportunity to report out with certainty and clarity whether or not there will be any moves in the coming days or hours, and also to inform the relevant players, prior to actually speaking to the media? or wouldn't it be more fruitful to have deliberate, meaningful discussions about the future of the team and a top prospect? you'd rather the team not needlessly rush important decisions, wouldn't you? do you really expect us to believe that willie is so simple-minded that he is capable only of binary thought? that when he says that pelfrey's in the rotation, that he is incapable of holding any reservations or doubt as to the matter? that he's not capable of internal indecision or ambiguity? that from the instant that pelfrey is in the rotation, that willie is unable to ponder any circumstance or possibility that pelfrey might not stay in the rotation, until that decision is made for him by the bigwigs, and then he flips a little mental switch whereby it is now impossible for him to envision any circumstance whereby pelfrey might find his way back into the rotation? in his brain, players are either locked into the major leagues, or they're in the minors, and nobody anywhere, or at least not on his team, can alter their lot, at least until the bigwigs say so? I think Willie's a jackass to schedule an interview before he tells Pelfrey that he's going down, and I think you're all being ridiculously defensive in insisting that Willie does an exemplary job of press relations. He's horrendous in how he deals with the press in general. He's got a lot to learn, and he seems pretty determined not to learn it. All you have to do to see how a manager skilled in answering questions is tune into Joe Torre, who does a much better job than Willie ever will, both in answering tough questions and in deflecting tough questions, but of course you'd rather drink bleach than subject yourself to a Torre interview. It takes some brains (not a lot) for example to prep the interviewer: "If you ask me about Pelfrey's spot in the rotation, I'm going to walk away, leaving you dead air and no interview, so dont go there. I'll have news for you on that in about forty-five minutes" but Willie doesn't have the sort of brain-power that requires so he gets himself into these fixes all the time.

iramets May 16 2007 10:15 AM

TheOldMole wrote: Here's a thought. Willie doesn't have to tell everything he knows to the media. I-Did-Not-Know-That! Here's another thought--when he doesn't want to comment, he can say no comment. "Not revealing all he knows" doesn't equal "Lying."

Elster88 May 16 2007 10:15 AM

iramets wrote: I think Willie's a jackass to schedule an interview before he tells Pelfrey that he's going down, I thought the question came up in a post-game interview. Hard to blame Willie for "scheduling" one of those.

iramets May 16 2007 10:20 AM

Elster88 wrote: ="iramets"]I think Willie's a jackass to schedule an interview before he tells Pelfrey that he's going down, I thought the question came up in a post-game interview. Hard to blame Willie for "scheduling" one of those. If you're a Koolaid drinker, yeah, it's hard. All he has to do is say, "No interview, fellas. Something came up. Sorry. Catch you in an hour," if he really needs the whole hour to splain stuff to a sobbing Pelfrey. But maybe that kind of intricate planning is beyond Willie's capacities. Probably so.

Elster88 May 16 2007 10:25 AM

iramets wrote: ="Elster88"] iramets wrote: I think Willie's a jackass to schedule an interview before he tells Pelfrey that he's going down, I thought the question came up in a post-game interview. Hard to blame Willie for "scheduling" one of those. If you're a Koolaid drinker, yeah, it's hard. All he has to do is say, "No interview, fellas. Something came up. Sorry. Catch you in an hour," if he really needs the whole hour to splain stuff to a sobbing Pelfrey. But maybe that kind of intricate planning is beyond Willie's capacities. Probably so. It's rather amazing. Seriously, I have no words. I salute you sir.

duan May 16 2007 11:07 AM

iramets wrote: You really don't see how your post was a vote for "clueless"? Here's how the scoring was derived: You asked me to believe that Willie's interview answer preceded any serious consideration he was having of demoting Pelfrey. That's a stretch, innit? You're telling me that Willie walked from the interview to a room with Omar and the heavy hitters, and they explained terms to him like "What the DL Means", "The Difference Between MLB and the Minors," "Moises' Boo-Boo," "Why Pelfrey's Performance has Been Disappointing" (with all sorts of colored charts, pie graphs, etc.). and he came to the conclusion that these circumstances might allow for the move that he had just finished denying vigorously nevertheless being made immediately. Like I say, Mebbe so, but that does create the possibility that Willie's not the smartest pigeon in the coop. No, it's REALLY simple. The situation was shifting. They hadn't reached a decision about Pelfrey/Alou/Gomez immediately after the game. In the context when asked the 100% right thing to do was to say that Pelfrey was still in the rotation till they'd decided he wasn't. Have you ever tried to figure out how long a muscle injury's going to take to heal OR analysed a DVD of a pitcher's performance? You reckon you can do both in 20 minutes?

Rockin' Doc May 16 2007 11:10 AM

I'm just guessing here, but I get the distinct feeling that some of you enjoy bashing your head against a stone wall.

iramets May 16 2007 11:11 AM

duan wrote: ="iramets"]You really don't see how your post was a vote for "clueless"? Here's how the scoring was derived: You asked me to believe that Willie's interview answer preceded any serious consideration he was having of demoting Pelfrey. That's a stretch, innit? You're telling me that Willie walked from the interview to a room with Omar and the heavy hitters, and they explained terms to him like "What the DL Means", "The Difference Between MLB and the Minors," "Moises' Boo-Boo," "Why Pelfrey's Performance has Been Disappointing" (with all sorts of colored charts, pie graphs, etc.). and he came to the conclusion that these circumstances might allow for the move that he had just finished denying vigorously nevertheless being made immediately. Like I say, Mebbe so, but that does create the possibility that Willie's not the smartest pigeon in the coop. No, it's REALLY simple. The situation was shifting. They hadn't reached a decision about Pelfrey/Alou/Gomez immediately after the game. In the context when asked the 100% right thing to do was to say that Pelfrey was still in the rotation till they'd decided he wasn't. Have you ever tried to figure out how long a muscle injury's going to take to heal OR analysed a DVD of a pitcher's performance? You reckon you can do both in 20 minutes? I can say "I'll have a comment for you, fellas, in a few hours" in about 3 and a half seconds. There's no shame in postponing an interview, or placing a certain subject off-limits temporarily, unless you're a massively insecure kinda dumb guy who needs to always seem to have the answer, especially when he doesn't quite have it figured out yet.

iramets May 16 2007 11:22 AM

And for those of you who are curious about some of Torre's best ploys for dealing with questions he doesn't want to answer right that second, there's always the non-response response. When done skillfully enough, it's a work of art, and sometimes it even seems like you've given an answer: "Joe, have you disciplined Jeter for giving the finger to a fan in today's game?" "You know, Derek is a great competitor, it's kind of amazing how he keeps his focus on the game, and he and I talk all the time about the ways he channels that competitive focus." "Yeah, but are you going to fine him or suspend him or do nothing, or what? Give me a direct answer, Joe." "Well, I guess those are all possibilities, but I'm confident that Derek still has the total respect of his teammates. Certainly he has mine, and I'm sure we'll all get through this stressful period and be stronger for it." "Thank you, Joe."

duan May 16 2007 11:30 AM

iramets wrote: ="duan"] iramets wrote: You really don't see how your post was a vote for "clueless"? Here's how the scoring was derived: You asked me to believe that Willie's interview answer preceded any serious consideration he was having of demoting Pelfrey. That's a stretch, innit? You're telling me that Willie walked from the interview to a room with Omar and the heavy hitters, and they explained terms to him like "What the DL Means", "The Difference Between MLB and the Minors," "Moises' Boo-Boo," "Why Pelfrey's Performance has Been Disappointing" (with all sorts of colored charts, pie graphs, etc.). and he came to the conclusion that these circumstances might allow for the move that he had just finished denying vigorously nevertheless being made immediately. Like I say, Mebbe so, but that does create the possibility that Willie's not the smartest pigeon in the coop. No, it's REALLY simple. The situation was shifting. They hadn't reached a decision about Pelfrey/Alou/Gomez immediately after the game. In the context when asked the 100% right thing to do was to say that Pelfrey was still in the rotation till they'd decided he wasn't. Have you ever tried to figure out how long a muscle injury's going to take to heal OR analysed a DVD of a pitcher's performance? You reckon you can do both in 20 minutes? I can say "I'll have a comment for you, fellas, in a few hours" in about 3 and a half seconds. There's no shame in postponing an interview, or placing a certain subject off-limits temporarily, unless you're a massively insecure kinda dumb guy who needs to always seem to have the answer, especially when he doesn't quite have it figured out yet. Have you ever tried to make a deadline with a match report? You don't have the time to wait for a few hours. You've generally got to have 3/4s of it written before it ends. If you're chasing post game quotes you're really up against it and if a manager says "i'll have a comment in a few hours" that simply becomes "Randolph evaded questions about Pelfrey's status". What you seem incapable of getting, is that at the moment when Willie answered the question, it was in all probability the right answer to give. I think the most likely thing is that after the immediate aftermath of the game, Willie Randolph & Omar Minaya sat down and went through the situation either with (or having been informed of the thoughts of) Rick Peterson (in relation to Pelfrey) and the medical staff (in relation to Alou - and probably El Duque too). Their conclusion was then a) we need cover for Alou - he may get away without a dl stint, but we won't know for a few days. b) Pelfrey's hasn't pitched as we'd hoped - it may be that he needs to develop more @ AAA where he can work on his XXXX under less pressure. And then they followed their course of action. ---- You make SUCH a big deal about such rational, explainable stuff that it boggles the mind.

Edgy DC May 16 2007 11:36 AM

Clearly, Pelfrey went down relative to the need to replace Alou more than the need to replace Pelfrey. Willie was judging him on his own at the time.

iramets May 16 2007 12:02 PM

duan wrote: Have you ever tried to make a deadline with a match report? You don't have the time to wait for a few hours. You've generally got to have 3/4s of it written before it ends. If you're chasing post game quotes you're really up against it and if a manager says "i'll have a comment in a few hours" that simply becomes "Randolph evaded questions about Pelfrey's status". . Well, I used to be a reporter before I became a professor of journalism, so I suppose some would say that I know something about making deadlines. "Randolph evaded questions about Pelfrey's status" is the truth, "Randolph gave assurances that Pelfrey would start on Thursday" is a lie. Usually, if a source asks me to hold onto something pending confirmation or some such, and means I'll miss my deadline if I wait, I would cut him some slack (assuming that the story wasn't earth-shattering news). Reporters dont print things still in progress all the time, and on-air reporters usually agree not to inquire into certain areas of non-responsiveness if they're told when the info will be forthcoming. The plain truth is that Willie chose to lie because that's who he is: a habitual liar, a pretender to knowledge he doesn't have, or sometimes a pretender to knowledge he's incapable of having. He's of weak character, massively insecure, visibly uncomfortable parrying with reporters who are to a man more knowledgable and more experienced than he is, and someone for whom I have very little respect as a human being. I wouldn't hire him to swab out my toilet bowl. Maybe you would.

martin May 16 2007 12:12 PM

iramets wrote: Marty! Baby! how ya been ? I was just thinking of you in the context of " I like it when Willie lies to the commie press!" You're my poster boy for 'LYING TO THE PRESS IS A VIRTUE!" This thread has needed your valuable input. it is true, i do like when managers lie to the press. it doesnt really matter to me what the manager tells the press, and if he misleads them, that is amusing. i am not saying willie lied here, because he might have just changed his mind. i dont think willie ever likes to indicate anything less than total confidence in his playaz, so he says nice things about their performances. but then sometimes he makes decisions that appear to oppose what he said. no big deal. if you want to talk about how willie makes weird baseball moves, i will probaby agree, but as far as dealing with the press, who cares?

metsmarathon May 16 2007 12:12 PM

re: ira. wow.

Elster88 May 16 2007 12:14 PM

iramets wrote: And for those of you who are curious about some of Torre's best ploys for dealing with questions he doesn't want to answer right that second, there's always the non-response response. When done skillfully enough, it's a work of art, and sometimes it even seems like you've given an answer: "Joe, have you disciplined Jeter for giving the finger to a fan in today's game?" "You know, Derek is a great competitor, it's kind of amazing how he keeps his focus on the game, and he and I talk all the time about the ways he channels that competitive focus." "Yeah, but are you going to fine him or suspend him or do nothing, or what? Give me a direct answer, Joe." "Well, I guess those are all possibilities, but I'm confident that Derek still has the total respect of his teammates. Certainly he has mine, and I'm sure we'll all get through this stressful period and be stronger for it." "Thank you, Joe." And non-answers like this wouldn't offend your delicate sensibilities? Are you saying "Avoid the question or ignore the question, or feed me a bunch of a bullshit to dodge the question, just don't lie to me." Just want to get that straight.

martin May 16 2007 12:17 PM

iramets wrote: The plain truth is that Willie chose to lie because that's who he is: a habitual liar, a pretender to knowledge he doesn't have, or sometimes a pretender to knowledge he's incapable of having. He's of weak character, massively insecure, visibly uncomfortable parrying with reporters who are to a man more knowledgable and more experienced than he is, and someone for whom I have very little respect as a human being. I wouldn't hire him to swab out my toilet bowl. Maybe you would. hehe, you dont believe this, you cant fool me!

Elster88 May 16 2007 12:18 PM

iramets wrote: The plain truth is that Willie chose to lie because that's who he is: a habitual liar, a pretender to knowledge he doesn't have, or sometimes a pretender to knowledge he's incapable of having. He's of weak character, massively insecure, visibly uncomfortable parrying with reporters who are to a man more knowledgable and more experienced than he is. This is hysterical.

Willets Point May 16 2007 12:19 PM

iramets wrote: ="duan"]Have you ever tried to make a deadline with a match report? You don't have the time to wait for a few hours. You've generally got to have 3/4s of it written before it ends. If you're chasing post game quotes you're really up against it and if a manager says "i'll have a comment in a few hours" that simply becomes "Randolph evaded questions about Pelfrey's status". . Well, I used to be a reporter before I became a professor of journalism, so I suppose some would say that I know something about making deadlines. Regardless of how ridiculous I find this thread I have to point out that ira got a pretty good zing on duan here.

Benjamin Grimm May 16 2007 12:35 PM

I have to admit that I've gotten to the point with this thread that I'm no longer reading ira's comments, just people's responses to him.

metirish May 16 2007 12:37 PM

I think it's gas,a total laugh. carry on.

iramets May 16 2007 01:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 16 2007 01:08 PM

Elster88 wrote: Are you saying "Avoid the question or ignore the question, or feed me a bunch of a bullshit to dodge the question, just don't lie to me." Just want to get that straight. Sure. It's a game. if you have info you don't want to tell me, and I ask you, and you tell me something that resembles a good answer but contains no actual information, I tip my cap to you, quote you, and try again the next day. But as Albert Einstein said, "Anger is man's response to being lied to," and if you make me angry by lying to me directly, I'm going to find a way to screw you to the wall eventually. Eisenhower was a master of evasive tactics. My favorite quote from him is something he told his Press Secretary, Jim Haggerty, just before a press conference on some difficult subject they wanted hushed up: "Don't worry, Jim, I'll just confuse 'em" which he did.

iramets May 16 2007 01:04 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I have to admit that I've gotten to the point with this thread that I'm no longer reading ira's comments, just people's responses to him. Poor Yancy. He has no idea what he's missing by depriving himself of my insights.

martin May 16 2007 01:05 PM

why do reporters care if willie tells them the truth? they get their quotes, their story, they have nothing personally invested in it. they can can even write on a story on the inconsistency. they report what he said, why would they be angry about the content?

Johnny Dickshot May 16 2007 01:14 PM

I think the reporters have enough on the ball to know when they're being snowed and have a reasonable expectation they'll be fed official half-truths in the same way the org knows they'll get the same idiotic questions every night. If WWSB were a pathologoical liar (as Noble belioeved Bobby Valentine was and so wouldn't for a time interview him) we'd know who'da thunk it by now.

duan May 16 2007 01:28 PM

Willets Point wrote: ="iramets"] ="duan"]Have you ever tried to make a deadline with a match report? You don't have the time to wait for a few hours. You've generally got to have 3/4s of it written before it ends. If you're chasing post game quotes you're really up against it and if a manager says "i'll have a comment in a few hours" that simply becomes "Randolph evaded questions about Pelfrey's status". . Well, I used to be a reporter before I became a professor of journalism, so I suppose some would say that I know something about making deadlines. Regardless of how ridiculous I find this thread I have to point out that ira got a pretty good zing on duan here. to be honest, I would have thought if anyone had any real working knowledge of how post match stuff is done they'd have every sympathy with Willie here rather then thinking he was some kind of lying, incompetent imbecile. The thing is, I don't have any huge grá for Randolph, it's just that this is so out of whack, so far from rational analysis, so completely absurd that it's unreal. I simply don't get how someone can totally ignore the fact that Moises Alou's injury CLEARLY had an impact in this whole process. Anyway, I can't be arsed anymore, because you're just being ignorant for the sake of it.

metirish May 16 2007 01:49 PM

J.P. Riccardi admitted that he lied about B.J Ryan in spring training,told everyone that his back that was bothering him, while it reality is was actually a shoulder injury that he has since had to get surgery on. Hardly surprising or anything new that baseball people tell lies.

metsmarathon May 16 2007 02:02 PM

but riccardi is wily and cunning. willie is a buffoon.

Willets Point May 16 2007 02:17 PM

Words to add to my vocabulary: "grá" and "arsed".

Frayed Knot May 16 2007 02:24 PM

Personally I liked it a few weeks back when the non-lying Torre vowed during his weekly M&MD interview not to bring Rivera in prior to the 9th inning this season ... and then did so that very night. Or when he swore that using Pettitte for between-start relief appearances was a one-time deal (as if that's a tough one to keep) ... but then did it again a few days later.

metsmarathon May 16 2007 02:35 PM

but torre was straightforward and evasive when he answered. willie is too dumb to be either.

iramets May 16 2007 02:56 PM

metsmarathon wrote: but torre was straightforward and evasive when he answered. willie is too dumb to be either. No, no, you've got it exactly backwards. According to FK (above) Willie is a fine gentleman when he tells his absurd and ignorant bullshit stories, and Torre's a figure of fun--at least to the Koolaid crowd. If FK (and the rest of yuz) actually appplied the same exact standards, regardless of uniform, I'm certain you'd see that Willie is a cruder and more blatent, less skillful liar than Torre (and than most managers). That's the advantage of not liking Torre and not liking Willie either--I have no dog in this contest and can apply an objective standard. But those blue-and -orange goggles keep you seeing Willlie as a champion of Truth, and keep me motivated to point out where he is anything but. I can respect people who claim "Yeah, Willie told a dumb whopper on Saturday--it's not that big a deal," I'd disagree but I'd concede the point that veracity from any public fuigure is more important to me than to others. But to say "He didn't lie" is to become complicit in the lying yourself, and that's what I'd strive very hard not to do--never, I can help it. Also, as I pointed out at the time, when Torrre was asked aobut the sudden change in policy he 'fessed up promptly. "I lied" is, I believe, how how he accounted for it.

Rotblatt May 16 2007 03:03 PM

]But those blue-and -orange goggles keep you seeing Willlie as a champion of Truth Wait, do you mean Willie DOESN'T have a gigantic S on his chest? Say it ain't so, Ira!

iramets May 16 2007 03:05 PM

duan wrote: I simply don't get how someone can totally ignore the fact that Moises Alou's injury CLEARLY had an impact in this whole process. Anyway, I can't be arsed anymore, because you're just being ignorant for the sake of it. You know, I get PMs from admins when I call other posters "ignorant"--you're really special, Duan. My point is that Willie was aware of Alou's injury, and aware that Pelfrey looked like he could use a month or two in AAA, and should have known that this question could come up. if he knew, yet decided to talk to the press anyway before talking to Pelfrey, he was stupid and arrogant, having decided to lie if he was asked directly. If he didn't know, then he was clueless. You're claiming "clueless, but please don't call him that." What do you care? He got into a problem of his own devising because he held an interview that he was not compelled to hold, thinking that his contemptuous lie would get him through, and it works for you. Not so much for me.

Nymr83 May 16 2007 04:11 PM

I think at this point you're just dwelling on it, time to just enjoy baseball and save yourself for Willie's next lie.

Kid Carsey May 16 2007 05:05 PM

ira: >>>I get PMs from admins when I call other posters "ignorant"<<< Mean old admins. The drama kingness of this thread is so over the top I just couldn't find a place to jump in. Jumping out ...

Frayed Knot May 16 2007 05:11 PM

"According to FK (above) Willie is a fine gentleman when he tells his absurd and ignorant bullshit stories, and Torre's a figure of fun--at least to the Koolaid crowd." Seven

iramets May 16 2007 05:30 PM

="Frayed Knot"]"According to FK (above) Willie is a fine gentleman when he tells his absurd and ignorant bullshit stories, and Torre's a figure of fun--at least to the Koolaid crowd." Seven Or zero, depending on whether you're in need of the remedial reading offer: For the sake of those dim-minded nitwits who might not realize this on their own, the above dialogue is being attributed to Willie Randolph for satirical puposes only. That is to say (and I beg the pardon of any readers who are not actually mentally retarded here) I am not claiming that Randolph really said the above words, merely that, in the unlikely event that he didn't understand the concept while he was honestly answering the reporter's direct question about possibly demoting Pelfrey, these words might accurately characterize IMO his actual opinion. I do this sometimes, and people who don't need to breathe through their mouths and have had three or four consecutive thoughts without their brains asploding often realize what being "satirized" means. To the literal-minded, I offer my apologies and a free ticket to any good fourth-grade remedial reading program.

Elster88 May 16 2007 08:01 PM

You have to admit it didn't take long.

metirish May 16 2007 09:46 PM

Nymr83 wrote: I think at this point you're just dwelling on it, time to just enjoy baseball and save yourself for Willie's next lie. I think that happened like four pages ago :)

Nymr83 May 16 2007 11:22 PM

yeah, the "discussion" pretty much ended on page 1. welcome to the Red Light forum. fuck you. yeah, you.