Master Index of Archived Threads


koolaid-induced psychosis (split from Glavine)

metsmarathon Jul 27 2007 07:48 PM

that 2006 sure was shitty, and i'm terribly disappointed that i had to suffer the indignity of 2005 as well. while the glavine signing didnt necessarily help matters in 2003 & 4, his salary is hardly the primary reason those teams sucked.

iramets Jul 27 2007 07:55 PM

metsmarathon wrote: while the glavine signing didnt necessarily help matters in 2003 & 4, his salary is hardly the primary reason those teams sucked. A perfect example of koolaid-induced psychosis: a 9-14, 4.52 pitcher collecting 11 million dollars "didn't necessarily help matters." Gosh, maybe if they paid him a little more, that might have worked a little better. Yeah, that was the critical error in 2003.

metsmarathon Jul 27 2007 10:44 PM

our opening day lineup in 2003 was: 1. cedeno CF 2. alomar 2B 3. floyd LF 4. piazza C 5. vaughn 1B 6. wigginton 3B 7. burnitz RF 8. sanchez SS 9. glavine P with mike stanton as our primary setup guy leading to armando benitez and tom glavine is the biggest reason we sucked that year? sounds good. until the next agenda, that is.

iramets Jul 28 2007 03:26 AM

metsmarathon wrote: our opening day lineup in 2003 was: 1. cedeno CF 2. alomar 2B 3. floyd LF 4. piazza C 5. vaughn 1B 6. wigginton 3B 7. burnitz RF 8. sanchez SS 9. glavine P with mike stanton as our primary setup guy leading to armando benitez and tom glavine is the biggest reason we sucked that year? sounds good. until the next agenda, that is. Digging yourself deeper and deeper here, mm. If this is their opening day lineup, why are the Mets signing an elderly win-now veteran for top dollar to a long-term contract? To gull a few more fannies into the seats before it becomes clear there will have to be a major rebuilding effort to compete? Seems far likelier an agenda on the Wilpons' part than actually, you know, winning games that year.

metsmarathon Jul 28 2007 11:05 AM

iramets wrote: ="metsmarathon"]our opening day lineup in 2003 was: 1. cedeno CF 2. alomar 2B 3. floyd LF 4. piazza C 5. vaughn 1B 6. wigginton 3B 7. burnitz RF 8. sanchez SS 9. glavine P with mike stanton as our primary setup guy leading to armando benitez and tom glavine is the biggest reason we sucked that year? sounds good. until the next agenda, that is. Digging yourself deeper and deeper here, mm. If this is their opening day lineup, why are the Mets signing an elderly win-now veteran for top dollar to a long-term contract? To gull a few more fannies into the seats before it becomes clear there will have to be a major rebuilding effort to compete? Seems far likelier an agenda on the Wilpons' part than actually, you know, winning games that year. so what you're saying is that the glavine signing was symptomatic of a flawed organizational approach. that because the mets were too foolish to see that they did not have a contending club, and should instead have initiated a rebuilding effort, and/or that they were more interested in making money by fooling gullible fannies into losing seats, the mets signed glavine. see, if glavine were the primary reson for the failure of the 2003 mets, then they would have signed him thinking they had the makings of a winning club, but due to his sucking, the mets sucked too. no, its the organizational philosophy of the time, which the glavine signing was symptomatic of, that led to the sucking. if they had not signed glavine, would they have rebuilt instead? no, they probably would have tried to bring in another name, right, to fool those idiot fans, right? they still would have sucked - they'd just've had a differet opening day starter.

iramets Jul 28 2007 11:53 AM

Too complicated, too paranoiac, too ill-thought-out for me, mm. Try again? Do you actually believe all of that? None of that? Some of that? If some, which parts?

metsmarathon Jul 29 2007 10:06 AM

ok, lets try this, but with fewer words. A.) the glavine signing was symptomatic of the flawed organizational approach or assessment that led to the suckitude of the 2003/4 mets. B.) the glavine signing caused the flawed organizational approach or assessment that led to the suckitude of the 2003/4 mets. which of the above two statements do you most feel is correct?

iramets Jul 29 2007 10:20 AM

="metsmarathon"]ok, lets try this, but with fewer words. A.) the glavine signing was symptomatic of the flawed organizational approach or assessment that led to the suckitude of the 2003/4 mets. B.) the glavine signing caused the flawed organizational approach or assessment that led to the suckitude of the 2003/4 mets. which of the above two statements do you most feel is correct? A

metsmarathon Jul 29 2007 11:06 AM

so then is not the primary reason for the failures of the 2003 & 4 season that flawed organizational approach or assessment, and not specifically the tom glavine signing?

iramets Jul 29 2007 11:12 AM

metsmarathon wrote: so then is not the primary reason for the failures of the 2003 & 4 season that flawed organizational approach or assessment, and not specifically the tom glavine signing? Who started using the word "primary" to describe the Glavine signing debacle, you or me? You're trying to create a strawman argument here, that I blamed the entire problem solely on the Glavine signing, and then "proving" that it isn't so.

metsmarathon Jul 29 2007 11:35 AM

iramets wrote: ="metsmarathon"]while the glavine signing didnt necessarily help matters in 2003 & 4, his salary is hardly the primary reason those teams sucked. A perfect example of koolaid-induced psychosis: a 9-14, 4.52 pitcher collecting 11 million dollars "didn't necessarily help matters." Gosh, maybe if they paid him a little more, that might have worked a little better. Yeah, that was the critical error in 2003.

iramets Jul 29 2007 12:35 PM

You quote me quoting YOU using the word "primary" first, and you think that somehow places the burden on ME? Why not look at your language "didn't necessarily help"? How bad would have had to have been for you to characterize his 2003 more harshly? 8-15, 5.52? 0-23, 10.52? Or is there just no upper limit to suckitude that you kool-aid swillers won't characterize gently as "didn't necessarily help"?

metsmarathon Jul 29 2007 12:51 PM

lets review. me: tom glavine is not the primary reason the mets from 2003 sucked ira: "that was the critical error" me: look at the opening day lineup ira: you're digging yourself deeper. the mets didnt want to win so much as make money. me: A or B ira: A me: so tom glavine is not the primary reason the mets sucked... ira: whoever said he was? me: i said he wasn't, subsequently you said he was the critical error. ira: lets change the argument. does that wrap it up nicely?

iramets Jul 29 2007 01:09 PM

metsmarathon wrote: lets review. me: tom glavine is not the primary reason the mets from 2003 sucked ira: "that was the critical error" me: look at the opening day lineup ira: you're digging yourself deeper. the mets didnt want to win so much as make money. me: A or B ira: A me: so tom glavine is not the primary reason the mets sucked... ira: whoever said he was? me: i said he wasn't, subsequently you said he was the critical error. ira: lets change the argument. does that wrap it up nicely? If you're totally fucked, it does. To say that something is critical is far from saying that it is a complete or primary explanation. He is the critical error, the clearest explanation of what was messed up about their philosophy and policy, but they fucked up plenty other than signing him. You'll never get me to say that any team foolish enough to bat Mike Piazza fourth with his skills in 2003 could have made a larger, more foolish error, but that doesn't get them of fthe hook for the Glavine disaster. I'm not interested in changing the subject. If you don't want to answer my further questions, then decline to answer like a man. Don't be a little girly and accuse me of changing the subject when I'm happy to stay all day on the subject of the Mets' brilliance in signing Tom Glavine .

Edgy DC Jul 29 2007 02:38 PM

This is exhausting.

iramets Jul 29 2007 03:02 PM

Yes, but fundamentally, it's pretty simple. The Mets fucked up, and we (to some degree) were complicit, even enabling, in supporting their fuck-up. Some of us can see that, and some of us refuse to see that. Sometimes I like to quote Santayana on history, and the repeating of it for those who refuse to learn from it, but this time I'll just point out the axiom about insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Keep signing elderly bozos to LT, BB contracts and you don't win very many pennants. You do suck the fans in to see the big-name stars, even the formerly detested stars from your rival teams like the Braves, and the Red Sox, and the Yankees, because fans don't really remember what it was they disliked about these players for years and year, but you end up with surprisingly few pennants. Maybe you just don't like pennants. That's possible, I guess.

Edgy DC Jul 29 2007 03:08 PM

Maybe I should just repeat that you should stop being condescending and picking fights with people, particularly by making up what they don't write and evading what they do. I don't want to. So please stop. It destroys an environment we've tried hard to facilitate.

iramets Jul 29 2007 05:05 PM

Yeah, I can see that offering views that disagree with your own destroys environments. It's a holocaust, I tell you, burning forests, throwing babies into ovens. Like I told KC, if your website can't handle some judicious questioning from time to time without the admins huddling together to decide how to punish the questioner, maybe you should change the name. "Bland Pablum Mets Board" or "24/7 LGM Board" --chrissakes, I've had my positions, which are pretty unassailable, distorted and misrepresented in the last 24 hours, in ways that I can demonstrate (and have) and I'm not crying out for your broad skirts to hide behind, am I? Like I used to say in my drinking days, I'll fight all of yuz together or one at a time. Of course I ended up most nights a pulpy hammered mess, and that's what I expect here, but I believe in speaking truth to power. You should try it sometime. But to be constructive here, what specifically would you identify as my making up what people write? And what specific cogent point of theirs would you like me to address? I will comply by clarifying the first point, and by addressing the second.

iramets Jul 29 2007 05:26 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 29 2007 05:31 PM

In fact, I'll anticipate your requests and offer an on-topic, specific response to G-Fafif's original post in this thread: I believe that everyone here (other than you) believes that Wins and Losses are significant measures of pitching ability. Overrated, to be sure, and overly simplistic in the minds of many primitive analysts, but still somewhat useful, especially in large enough samples, to measure approximate and general effectiveness. Now I also think that if you'd asked most Met fans on this site for the minimal expectations they would uphold for Tom Glavine over the terms of his four year contract, literally no one (other than you) would say, "I'll take any record that reaches or exceeds .500 ball--that is what I expect from Glavine for this sum of money, and any thing over and above a 12-12 annual record would be so much gravy on my already over-loaded plate. Just give me 12 and 12 and I'll be delirious with joy." In the fours prior to his contract with the Mets, the guy had gone 69-38 (a little better than 17-10)--do you suppose any of us weren't thinking a record more like that one, and less like 48-48, was the high end of our hopes but that .500 was way below anyone's minimal expectations? That being the case, it's res ipsa loquitor that Glavine's been overall a terrible disappointment. Certainly he's been that to me, and I suspect that if you held a few other CPFers' feet in the fire (or if anyone other than I did, anyway) they'd tell you the same. But to admit as much is to amit that the Mets made a terrible mistake in signing him, despite their initial thoughts and subsequent hopes. I've further attributed an overarching pattern--that of signing big-name veterans whose purpose is to pack fannies in the seats rather than to win baseball games--to this terrible mistake, and welcome discussion with those who see it differently. But I'm afraid you're so stuck in your position (all of You Guys, that is) that it infuriates you to discuss this in a rational manner. Hence, all these charges of "making shit up" and "You're full of shit, and that's all I want to say about it, so I'm taking my ball and going home" and "Shut up, you jackass, and don't bother defending yourself" and so on that I've been hearing so much of lately. If you think I'm saying vile and despicable things, you can either point out what I'm saying that offends you so or you can ignore me. Instead, what you admins are doing is jumping into thread after thread about baseball and interjecting your views of my character and honesty and manners, which I will thank you for but nonetheless decline to to take to heart as quickly as you might hope.

Edgy DC Jul 29 2007 06:09 PM

See, I can't read one word after, "Yeah, I can see that offering views that disagree with your own destroys environments." Because that's absolutely ignoring what I said and replacing it with what you want. Once you start doing that, it's not worth a moment to read the rest.

iramets Jul 29 2007 06:24 PM

And I should care why you choose to evade responding to my post? Unsurprisingly, I don't. It's sufficient that you don't, which tells me all I need to know about you.

Kid Carsey Jul 29 2007 06:26 PM

ira: >>>It's a holocaust, I tell you, burning forests, throwing babies into ovens. Like I told KC, if your website can't handle some judicious questioning from time to time without the admins huddling together to decide how to punish the questioner<<< You really need to stop. Please.

iramets Jul 29 2007 06:59 PM

Edgy DC wrote: it's my job. There's nothing good coming from this. You know that. Mafiosi tough-guy: "Hey, Ira, dis is just my job, ya unnersta'? I wouldn wanna see you get any more problems postin', see, or even gettin' yaself banned again. Be a shame if you should have a little accident, ya know? I'm just sayin..."

Edgy DC Jul 29 2007 07:19 PM

No. Stop.