Master Index of Archived Threads


Raw sewage?????

metsguyinmichigan Sep 19 2007 02:17 PM

Klapisch is a known Mets-hater from way-back. But this is exteme even for a Yankee-hack like him: ..."the players have lost their composure, the manager has failed to act like a leader and the front office has dumped raw sewage, notably Guillermo Mota and Scott Schoeneweis, into the bullpen." I've ridden those two pitchers as much as anyone, but "raw sewage?" That's not just over the top, it's out-right offensive. It would be nice to see someone from the Mets respond to this. Well, in a way different than Bonilla did... Then, we have this... "Randolph's pregame speech, followed by a 40-minute players-only meeting, couldn't prevent a fifth straight loss Tuesday night, a 9-8 defeat to the Nationals. For the second year in a row, the Mets have the most talent and the biggest payroll in the National League, but they've been exposed as pushovers. If the Mets really want to talk about luck, they'd better pray they don't end up in Citizens Bank Park in October: like the Cardinals in 2006, the Phillies now know the Mets will fold when the walls close in." Pushovers? Getting swept is being pushed over. Losing by a home run in the top of the ninth inning in game seven of the NLCS to the team that eventually wins the series does not make one "pushovers" Now, losing to the Marlins in six games in the series to a kid pitcher like the Yanks did might suggest a pushover-like fold, but you'd never hear Klap say that.... I shouldn't let him get to be, but he does. Had to vent.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 19 2007 02:32 PM

You know, one sweet (but nerve-wracking) ending to the regular season would be playing and winning that one-game playoff at Citizens Bank Park.

Rockin' Doc Sep 19 2007 10:09 PM

Being up three games to none in the ALCS best of seven series and then collapsing to lose in utter disgrace, that's what I would say constitutes being a pushover.

sharpie Sep 20 2007 06:49 AM

NY Observer compares Mota to raw sewage (not really) and calls his season historically terrible: http://nyobserver.com/2007/why-man-pitching-pennant-race-1

holychicken Sep 20 2007 07:35 AM

Is it just me or do the Mets get a lot more flak than anyone for losing to the Cardinals last year? IMO, the Mets were the only team they did not steamroll in the postseason yet it seems that all commentary ignores the fact that they destroyed both SD and DET and focuses solely on the Mets losing to them.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 20 2007 07:41 AM

Beating the Mets was the largest of the three upsets.

Edgy DC Sep 20 2007 07:46 AM

I think LaRussa did a good job against the Mets. I think Randolph got too much much crap and for the wrong reasons that series, but I think he was outmanaged. And I don't like saying that.

G-Fafif Sep 20 2007 01:17 PM

]Opposing executives say the Mets have been exposed as potentially soft -- yet again. And when it's cloudy, sources tell me, in-the-know tough guy reporter Bob Klapisch, exclusively that it might rain. Gee Klap, a five-game losing streak and you've got EXECUTIVES giving you the QT? A .500 team for 3-1/2 months has played inconsistently before the eyes of the world and you have EXECUTIVES giving you the skinny? Everyone who cares about baseball and the Mets has seen they are not impregnable but you found EXECUTIVES who could provide a Bob Klapisch scoop that they're potentially soft? Reportedly, Bob Klapisch is a tool.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 20 2007 01:21 PM

How many teams are there out there that are not "potentially soft"? Yeah, maybe the Mets will be soft. (I hear it happens to everyone from time to time.) Hopefully the excitement of the playoffs will make them hard. (This isn't going the way I intended. Let me begin again...) I'll be glad if my less-than-perfect team makes the playoffs and battles it out against another less-than-perfect team. What more can a fan ask?

holychicken Sep 20 2007 01:26 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Beating the Mets was the largest of the three upsets. Really? It seemed to me that the general consensus was that any of the AL teams that made it to the post season would be favorites to win the WS over any of the NL teams that made it. I agree that it was a bigger upset than the Padres, but the Tigers too?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 20 2007 01:29 PM

I don't know. I suspect that the Mets would have been favored over the Tigers.

Willets Point Sep 20 2007 01:54 PM

The Tigers were hot last fall and totally pwn3d the Yankees and the A's, going 7-1 in the playoffs. I doubt to many prognosticators expected they'd fall in 4 straight to the 83-win Cardinals who'd just come off a hard fought 7-game series. Incidentally, I recall the Tigers slumping last year in September after leading the division for pretty much the entire season, very similar to this year's Mets. It gives one confidence that a team that sucks in September can still have an excellent October (well, if you overlook the World Series part).

Benjamin Grimm Sep 20 2007 01:56 PM

That's true. The Tigers actually blew the division title to Minnesota and went into October as the AL Wild Card.

Willets Point Sep 20 2007 01:59 PM

Yes, but we don't have that luxury.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 20 2007 02:02 PM

Willets Point wrote: Yes, but we don't have that luxury. Not likely, no. If the Mets play badly, we need either the Phillies or the Padres to play worse.

Edgy DC Sep 20 2007 02:07 PM

One thing I liked last year is that the Cards had six outfielders. A lot of them were borderline-starter quality who needed situational use to be effective, but LaRussa was down with that. A team is that much harder to scout when you don't know what they're throwing at you from day to day. I think the Mets could potentially have something like that this year. A lot of different useful pieces are on that bench who could come through after shocking FOX with a surprise start.

TransMonk Sep 20 2007 02:22 PM

Willets Point wrote: It gives one confidence that a team that sucks in September can still have an excellent October (well, if you overlook the World Series part). See: Chicago White Sox 2005 - Had a 9.5 game lead on 9/7, let it slip to 1.5 on 9/24. Won division by 6 games and steamrolled through the playoffs to a championship. St. Louis Cardinals 2006 - Had 7 game lead on 9/20, let it slip to .5 on 9/28. Won division by 1.5 games and somehow beat everyone on their way to a championship. It's the new trend in champions.

Willets Point Sep 20 2007 02:36 PM

TM with the far better examples.

holychicken Sep 20 2007 02:47 PM

I can't wait for announcers start including late-season slides into "the little things make a championship team." "Wow, those 13 errors in the last 4 games, THIS late in the season, really shows to me that they are determined play baseball late into October."