Master Index of Archived Threads


What is Leadership?

metirish May 02 2008 07:30 AM

I think some people are born leaders and some need to grow into that role and frankly some are not suited for it , I think Wright could grow into that role if he wants it but I don't think it can be thrust on him because he is the clubs best player . Johnette Howard from Newsday thinks it's time Wright stood up to the role. ] Mets' Wright needs to step right up, knock club Johnette Howard It was encouraging to hear Billy Wagner call out Oliver Perez and the rest of his Mets teammates after Wednesday's 13-1 embarrassment against the Pittsburgh Pirates, baseball's perennial doormat. At least someone was disgusted. But such complaints would have been better coming from Mets third baseman David Wright. Or Carlos Beltran. Not just the Mets' closer. When you look around the Mets' clubhouse today and ask yourself who the leader of this tepid, puzzling team is, no one instantly leaps to mind. The Mets don't have someone who can transcend all cliques and be the straight-talking conscience of the club, a guy who demands accountability and imposes a personality or ethic on the team -- hurt feelings be damned. It's a lot to ask of anybody. It needn't come from just one player. And Wagner deserves credit for at least trying. But the truth is, in the pecking order of professional sports, a closer's influence in a baseball clubhouse is only slightly greater than a placekicker's clout in football. Teammates respect those guys when they do their jobs under pressure. But a closer or a kicker is a specialist. And that erodes their sway among the guys who are on the field every day for every play. Former Mets closer John Franco was a rare exception. An ace like injured Mets starter Pedro Martinez used to be is another. The longer Martinez is gone, the more it feels as if the Mets miss his personality even more than his pitching. He had a way of giving this team swagger when it had none, and lighting up the room just when the dog days were dragging everyone down or life felt too grim. The clubhouse is always a happier, noisier place when Pedro is around. Yet he also stood for uncompromising high performance and heart and passion. Wright has the game to be a bigger clubhouse conscience than he is. And now there's also a crying need for him to do it. He has the personality and scruples to take on the role. What he should reconsider is why he continues to defer to Beltran or Carlos Delgado or Wagner. A couple of weeks ago, Newsday's David Lennon did a fascinating interview with Wright in which Wright spoke about refusing to fraternize with opponents, even close friends, once he's in uniform and on the field because he's there to compete. Period. It's the sort of give-no-quarter attitude the Mets need. It's an old-school conviction that distinguishes Wright from most of his contemporaries. The bothersome thing was, who knew? Did you know Wright felt that strongly? Doesn't that conviction heighten your respect for him? So why keep it under wraps? Wright is too good to give way to Beltran and Delgado anymore. And what's at stake for the Mets is too important. They've been chasing the ghost of 2006 for two seasons now. They'd better hope their moment hasn't passed. Talent guarantees nothing. Wright has spoken frankly at other times this season about sensitive topics, such as the Mets' lack of a "killer instinct." But it was bothersome last Sunday when Wright used his age -- 25 -- as a disqualifier for not urging Delgado to take a curtain call Mets fans were imploring him to make. It would've been preferable if Wright had said he'll pick his spots and save taking stands for more important things. The Mets' self-sabotaging ways that Wagner cited certainly qualify. Someone needs to ride herd on these Mets. It can't always be manager Willie Randolph -- though it's about time for him to air out this team. The question isn't whether Randolph lets guys have it behind the scenes, because he does. The question is whether some of these Mets can take it. Every championship club that ever existed will tell you that winning imposes its own discipline within a team. Being mentally engaged and responsible to each other is a given. A collective spirit and mind-set takes hold. And right now, the Mets don't have it. They swore they learned the importance of each game from their collapse last year. But they don't play like it. They seem distracted. Delgado isn't hitting and now he's fielding like a bum. Perez is playing for a new contract. New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile. Shortstop Jose Reyes is struggling to make the transition from talented prodigy to true professional. Criticism gets to him. Beltran is a terrific talent, but he doesn't have the personality to be a clubhouse sheriff. He seems more interested in stiff-arming a city that always expects more no matter how much good he does. So if it's not Wright who leads the Mets, then who is it? .

AG/DC May 02 2008 07:49 AM

Wright's a year away, at least, from leadershp. You probably have to be in the top half of the clubhouse in terms of tenure. Moreover, I think he may be one of those guys whose done such a good job becoming a great baseball player that he forgot to develop a personality. And a broad personality can get in the way of becoming a great baseball player, so that's mostly good. It's a great, I guess, that he's not a a combustible hothead like George Brett, but at least Brett was a combustible hothead, and that's sort of something to get behind. But I think that's the kind of thing the press corps misses sometimes more than the team. Because when your best player starts letting on like he's Sgt. Shitface leading his squad over the hill, that story just writes itself. Johnnette Howard's a good writer, but rarely ever suprising. This is exactly the kind of story that comes from the corps of a team on a day off to travel west after an embarrassing and confusing loss. Howard needs to step up and show some leadership.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 07:53 AM Re: What is Leadership?

Johnette Howard wrote: "Wright is too good to give way to Beltran and Delgado anymore...." I thought that Ollie Perez would've been more effective last game if it was David Wright yelling at him "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" instead of, say, Beltran or Delgado.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 07:55 AM Re: What is Leadership?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I thought that Ollie Perez would've been more effective last game if it was David Wright yelling at him "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" instead of, say, Beltran or Delgado. Then again, maybe not. Does David know how to say "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" in spanish?

mario25 May 02 2008 07:56 AM

All those things mentioned (Delgado-stinks,Beltran-quiet,Reyes-finding himself) are exactly why a Met needs to step up and become a leader of the team. The obvious choice is Wright but if he doesn't want it then why dont the Mets name a captain? Let the team vote on it... I think a guy like Schneider could be the man.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 07:57 AM Re: What is Leadership?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Then again, maybe not. Does David know how to say "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" in spanish? This could be like that "Yo la tengo" anecdote, but in reverse.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 08:00 AM

mario25 wrote: All those things mentioned ... are exactly why a Met needs to step up and become a leader of the team. I'd bet that having a team captain is worth, on average, 2.43 extra wins a season. How many games out did the Mets finish last season?

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 08:17 AM Re: What is Leadership? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 02 2008 08:19 AM

Johnette Howard wrote: So if it's not Wright who leads the Mets, then who is it? I think that Willie Randolph should be the team captain.

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2008 08:19 AM

Batmag is talking to himself again.

AG/DC May 02 2008 08:30 AM

There's a certain truth to it, though.

Frayed Knot May 02 2008 11:04 AM

Mark Messier probably meant more from a leadership POV to those mid-'90s NYRangers than any other single player I can think of in team sports (plus a leader probably means more in hockey) and it certainly became fashionable to say how the '94 Cup team wasn't going to lose because "Mark Messier wouldn't allow them to". Of course all that is easy to say when things are all said and done. But it needs to be noted that the Messier-led '92 Rangers were also the best reg season team (as was the '94 squad) until getting themselves unceremoniously drop-kicked in the 2nd round by an inferior Penguins team who were playing handicapped without their injured star Mario Lemieux. The point of all this is that it's easy to crown leaders when things are going well and bemoan their absence when they're not, but that's often an after-the-fact assessment. If Messier was able to "not allow" his team to lose, why did he apparently allow it two years earlier? Or to almost miss the playoffs entirely in the season in between? Keith was a great leader for the Mets but would he be remembered for that w/o the Game 6 comeback or would his 'left the dugout to drink beer and sulk' act have been cited as exactly the opposite if Carter's single carries farther and into Rice's glove? Especially as Keith apparently did nothing to discourage the likes of Kevin Mitchell to head into the clubhouse and make plane reservations home before being called out to pinch-hit? Bottom line: Leadership is key ... except when it's not.

AG/DC May 02 2008 11:12 AM

Gary Carter would not allow Keith to allow the Mets to lose.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 12:36 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: But it needs to be noted that the Messier-led '92 Rangers were also the best reg season team .... Keith was a great leader for the Mets but [what about] his 'left the dugout to drink beer and sulk' act ....." Nice post. You didn't get bonus points though, because there was nothing in there about enough of the Rickey Henderson playing cards crap because without Rickey, there wouldn'ta been any 1999 post-season in the first place and I don't see how Rickey playing cards even if he did which I don't know, prevented the always crappy Ordonez from hitting the ball past the pitcher all series long.

TheOldMole May 02 2008 12:40 PM

There was the gag about the post-great Knick teams, when Walt Frazier was all that was left of the championship unit, where Clyde calls Red Holtzman one night and says, "Coach, this is the Captain," and Red replies, "Willis! Good to hear from you!"

AG/DC May 02 2008 12:41 PM

Is batmagadanleadoff Rickey Henderson?

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 12:51 PM

AG/DC wrote: Is batmagadanleadoff Rickey Henderson? Yes. batmagadanleadoff is Rickey Henderson, says batmagadanleadoff in true illeist fashion.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 01:24 PM

Maybe I've been too saracastic about this topic. Maybe sometimes you really do gotta have some heart.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 01:29 PM

And check out Tug's groovy belt buckle!

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 02 2008 01:30 PM

I can't believe they made those guys do that. Get Metzmerized was better.

AG/DC May 02 2008 01:33 PM

Seaver's flashing a gang symbol. Is that McGraw with the big buckle?

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2008 01:36 PM

="batmagadanleadoff"] Let's see if I can name those Mets: Back row: Agee, Boswell, Grote, Charles, Clendennon, Dyer, Garrett, don't know, Gentry, Grote again. Middle row: Harrelson, don't know, Koosman, Kranepool, don't know, McGraw, don't know, Ryan, Seaver. Front row: Shamsky, Swoboda, don't know, don't know, Piggy, Rube Walker, don't know, don't know.

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 01:36 PM

AG/DC wrote: Is that McGraw with the big buckle? Yeah. The Mets are, for the most part, in alphabetical order by last name.

AG/DC May 02 2008 01:40 PM

Well, I prefer that to my theory of "All negros to the back, please."

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 01:41 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 02 2008 01:45 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Let's see if I can name those Mets: Back row: Agee, Boswell, Grote, Charles, Clendennon, Dyer, Garrett, don't know, Gentry, Grote again. Middle row: Harrelson, don't know, Koosman, Kranepool, don't know, McGraw, don't know, Ryan, Seaver. Front row: Shamsky, Swoboda, don't know, don't know, Piggy, Rube Walker, don't know, don't know. Cal Koonce is left of Koosman. Jim McAndrew right of the Krane. Cardwell's your first Grote. Ron Taylor's right of Swoboda. Al Weis on the end. Rod Gaspar between Garrett and Gentry. Rube Walker? I thought that was Fred Mertz.

metirish May 02 2008 01:44 PM

Johnette Howard wrote. ] New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile. What does that mean , he's not rah rah enough , or at all?

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2008 01:48 PM

So I guess that's Gaspar between Garrett and Gentry. Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser?

AG/DC May 02 2008 01:57 PM

metirish wrote: Johnette Howard wrote. ] New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile. What does that mean , he's not rah rah enough , or at all? It means she needed to flesh out the article. Where the heck is Cleon?

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 02:04 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser? [url=http://ultimatemets.com/metannual.php?ThisYear=1969]Maybe this link'll help.[/url]

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 02:17 PM

AG/DC wrote: Well, I prefer that to my theory of "All negros to the back, please." Maybe Ed used both methods. Take another look at the picture.

Frayed Knot May 02 2008 02:37 PM

]You didn't get bonus points though, because there was nothing in there about enough of the Rickey Henderson playing cards crap I thought about mentioning that but I was getting long-winded enough as it was. Keith & Mitchell in clubhouse while '86 playoff game going on = cute, funny story because team eventually won Rickey & Bobby in clubhouse while '99 playoff game going on = not caring bastards because team eventually lost

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 02:42 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser? That's Jerry Grote again. And the other guy that-you-also-don't-know-who-he-is is also Jerry Grote. So's the mystery guy on the end. Jerry Grote.

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2008 02:44 PM

So I've finally proven my long-standing theory that there are at least four Jerry Grote's. Imagine how great it would be to shake hands with all of them!

batmagadanleadoff May 02 2008 02:48 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Keith & Mitchell in clubhouse while '86 playoff game going on = cute, funny story because team eventually won Rickey & Bobby in clubhouse while '99 playoff game going on = not caring bastards because team eventually lost Well ... Bobby Bonilla was a goddamned bastard for playing cards in the clubhouse during that last game.

G-Fafif May 02 2008 03:43 PM

From Page Six, the guest list here a bit intriguing. ]May 2, 2008 -- TO celebrate his 31st birthday the other night, Mets centerfielder Carlos Beltran craved some rice and beans with pollo frito, so he asked Jimmy Rodriguez to shut down his East 57th Street joint, Sofrito. Diving into the authentic Puerto Rican cuisine were teammates José Reyes, Carlos Delgado, Oliver Perez and David Wright, as well as catching instructor Sandy Alomar Jr. When the band cranked up, pitcher Johan Santana rattled the maracas and Endy Chavez pounded the drums. Marc Anthony took the mike to sing "Feliz Cumpleaños" and "Mi Gente." Just when you thought it couldn't get any wilder, Jennifer Lopez grabbed the birthday boy and shook her world-renowned booty. Then, the crowd improvised a song with the lyric, "We're going to win the World Series." The team that plays together, stays together. At the risk of overreading Los Mets subtext into the situation, I was rather elated to see David Wright among the celebrants. A leader on and off the field, bridging whatever cultural gaps may (or may not) exist among the players? Or just hungry for rice, beans and pollo frito? And will Beltran ask his pal Jimmy to open a concession at Citi Field to boost the Mets' ballpark food rating?

metirish May 02 2008 04:34 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 02 2008 07:14 PM

I've eaten at Sofrito(missus is from the PR) several times , great place and Jimmy Rodriguez is a hell of a nice guy.

AG/DC May 02 2008 06:36 PM

That means (1) you're one degree removed from partying with the Mets, my Celtorican friend, and (2) Johan Santana has a lot more personality than Johnnette Howard is picking up on.

seawolf17 May 02 2008 07:03 PM

She was probably just pissed that they didn't invite her.

metirish May 02 2008 07:15 PM

It's worth a visit , pricey but that's how we roll...... http://www.sofritony.com/

SteveJRogers May 02 2008 07:35 PM

="Frayed Knot"] ] Keith & Mitchell in clubhouse while '86 playoff game going on = cute, funny story because team eventually won Rickey & Bobby in clubhouse while '99 playoff game going on = not caring bastards because team eventually lost While I agree with the general point, there are differences, -Hernandez often makes the point that after making the second out he was so damn disgusted that he just couldn't stand to be in the dugout and watch the season end (though it showed a lack of faith in Gary Carter) as opposed to the infamous card game where legend has it neither man knew of the outcome of the game until their dejected teammates started coming into the clubhouse. -Mitchell plainly wasn't expecting himself to be used at all and was doing something that he would have no other real time to do, book the next available flight to San Diego ASAP. You can kind of make a case that he was doing something worthwhile with his time at that moment. As opposed to playing a game of cards. AG/DC May 02 2008 08:28 PM Hernandez has the advantage of making his argument after the fact, from a happy point of view. Hernandez and Mitchell were still in a game. For Bonilla and Henderson the game was over. DocTee May 02 2008 09:51 PM It's worth a visit , pricey but that's how we roll...... http://www.sofritony.com/ Ilitests-- if I can't wear my Timberlands, they ain't gettin' my money! DocTee May 02 2008 09:52 PM Met Irish] It's worth a visit , pricey but that's how we roll...... http://www.sofritony.com/ Ilitests-- if I can't wear my Timberlands, they ain't gettin' my money! SteveJRogers May 02 2008 10:35 PM ="AG/DC"]Hernandez has the advantage of making his argument after the fact, from a happy point of view. Hernandez and Mitchell were still in a game. For Bonilla and Henderson the game was over. Another difference is, the Mets go on to lose, where Hernandez watched the final out from is never discussed. Perhaps only in long after the fact books like Pearlman's book, but no one questions Hernandez's leadership. I'm sure baseball (the only sport where players are allowed to come and go from the "sidelines" as they please) history is FILLED with such examples of Hernandez's not wanting to see an excruciating end to one hell of a season. The Mets win Game 6 of 1999 NLCS on the other hand, the card game would never be brought up at all. AG/DC May 02 2008 10:43 PM ="SteveJRogers"] ="AG/DC"]Hernandez has the advantage of making his argument after the fact, from a happy point of view. Hernandez and Mitchell were still in a game. For Bonilla and Henderson the game was over. Another difference is, the Mets go on to lose, where Hernandez watched the final out from is never discussed. Perhaps only in long after the fact books like Pearlman's book, but no one questions Hernandez's leadership. I don't know why you would say that. ="SteveJRogers"][I'm sure baseball (the only sport where players are allowed to come and go from the "sidelines" as they please) history is FILLED with such examples of Hernandez's not wanting to see an excruciating end to one hell of a season. The Mets win Game 6 of 1999 NLCS on the other hand, the card game would never be brought up at all. These two paragraphs are not on opposite hands at all. I'm sure baseball is filled with examples of guys who are out of a game allegedly playing cards in the alleged clubhouse. SteveJRogers May 02 2008 11:18 PM ="AG/DC"] SteveJRogers wrote: ="AG/DC"]Hernandez has Another difference is, the Mets go on to lose, where Hernandez watched the final out from is never discussed. Perhaps only in long after the fact books like Pearlman's book, but no one questions Hernandez's leadership. I don't know why you would say that. Because it becomes a non story. And even so the media and fans would have given Hernandez a pass for it because "they would have done the same thing." In fact it probably would have enhanced Hernandez's "winner" mystique based on the fact that he didn't want to face seeing the Red Sox celebrate on his home field after such a great season. Just about anything. Actually, the only reason why it IS a story is because it's one of those quaint "people do silly superstitious things like never moving from their position" sort of stories. AG/DC May 02 2008 11:47 PM If it would be a non-story, then Henderson and Bonilla are a non-story. SteveJRogers May 02 2008 11:52 PM No, Henderson and Bonilla are NOT a non story because of what they were doing. Again, everyone would have given Hernandez a pass because "he is so much of a winner he hates to even WATCH the final out of his team loosing the World Series live in the dugout" The story with Henderson & Bonilla is that they were doing something completely unrelated, and legend has it they weren't even PAYING ATTENTION to the game. Hernandez at least was watching a TV. G-Fafif May 03 2008 03:51 AM From Tom Verducci's masterful 2003 SI profile, [url=http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1029027/1/index.htm]"What Is Rickey Henderson Doing In Newark?"[/url]: ]Mets manager Bobby Valentine removed Henderson from Game 6 of the 1999 NLCS, replacing him with Melvin Mora. New York lost on a series-ending bases-loaded walk by Kenny Rogers. Henderson reportedly was in the clubhouse playing cards with teammate Bobby Bonilla when the deciding run scored. Asked about the incident, Henderson offers a qualified denial: "Kenny Rogers came in the clubhouse, and we was playing cards? If Kenny Rogers made it off that mound and we was playing cards, everybody in America, even the press, would have been there when we were playing. So you can't say that. "Was it an excuse? These two guys [Henderson and Bonilla], you had took us out. We tied the game up, and you took me and him right back out of the game. What for? For defensive purposes that you said? Moore [sic]? That's your judgment, and you're my chief and you're the manager. And I have no say-so. Does it frustrate me? Yes, because during the postseason I feel that's when the people that's gonna rise to the top should rise to the top, and I feel I was always one of them type of players." What he said. AG/DC May 03 2008 07:06 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 03 2008 07:33 AM Steve, a player who is still available dropping his pants and underpants and making plane reservations is more counterproductive to his team than a player who is out of a game doing anything. Allegedly doing anything. And anybody who can't stand to see his team lose ought to say so with his bat. Frayed Knot May 03 2008 07:19 AM ]the media and fans would have given Hernandez a pass for it because "they would have done the same thing." In fact it probably would have enhanced Hernandez's "winner" mystique based on the fact that he didn't want to face seeing the Red Sox celebrate on his home field after such a great season. Replace the name 'Hernandez' with 'Delgado' in a similar situation and does he still get the same pass and mystique or does he get skewered for abondoing the team while thinking only of himself? Possible answers: a) No way b) I'm lying Now replace the Game 6 comeback with a Carter pop-out and does the Keith story retain the same warm fuzzy feeling? a) No way b) I'm going to pretend so AG/DC May 03 2008 07:35 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 03 2008 10:00 AM Replace "winner" with "whiner" in Steve's argument, though, and it works great. SteveJRogers May 03 2008 08:48 AM ="Frayed Knot"] Replace the name 'Hernandez' with 'Delgado' in a similar situation and does he still get the same pass and mystique or does he get skewered for abondoing the team while thinking only of himself? Possible answers: a) No way b) I'm lying To be perfectly honest, many in the Met fan community would welcome that sort of display from Delgado, especially after this photo after the the last game of the season last year as well as his "About what?" comment about wheither he was disgusted with the current state of affairs with the Mets. DocTee May 03 2008 09:19 AM Is that a Derek Jeter jersey he has under his arm? SteveJRogers May 03 2008 09:21 AM DocTee wrote: Is that a Derek Jeter jersey he has under his arm? Yes, IIRC it was for a charity auction thing. SteveJRogers May 03 2008 09:50 AM Just for the record, I'm just arguing that I can see people's (media, fans) point in giving Hernandez a pass in the "Well thats what I would have done" vein. Same reasoning for Met fans to be disgusted with Glavine's reaction to his final Met performance (granted that was probably more Glavine/Braves haters having at it with him and if it was John Maine it would have been given the "gee the kid has a good, even keeled head on his shoulder" treatment). AG/DC May 03 2008 10:00 AM I just like how you argue how all Met fans except you hold Met heroes to differerent standards, and then you turn around and can't hold Hernandez to anything like the same standard. SteveJRogers May 03 2008 10:03 AM AG/DC wrote: I just like how you argue how all Met fans except you hold Met heroes to differerent standards, and then you turn around and can't hold Hernandez to anything like the same standard. You and FK like getting the last word on me don't you? So admitting that I really don't care either way, despite listing excuses listed by Hernandez and saying that I see the media and fan's perspective on giving him and Mitchell a pass with the "cute story" approach while giving Henderson & Bonilla hell is another example of me doing a circular argument? metsmarathon May 03 2008 10:20 AM am i alone in never being able to figure out what the hell steve is talking about, and what his actual point is, because i can't for the life of me figure out what his point is, and whether its his point that he's making, or if he's manufacturing a point on the behalf of some mysterious unmentioned met fan collective... or is it just that when his point gets squashed and refuted that he then attributes it to the mysterious mythical met fan collective which allows him to then distance himself from his own point... i can't tell, because i just can't follow it. SteveJRogers May 03 2008 10:22 AM metsmarathon wrote: am i alone in never being able to figure out what the hell steve is talking about, and what his actual point is, because i can't for the life of me figure out what his point is, and whether its his point that he's making, or if he's manufacturing a point on the behalf of some mysterious unmentioned met fan collective... or is it just that when his point gets squashed and refuted that he then attributes it to the mysterious mythical met fan collective which allows him to then distance himself from his own point... i can't tell, because i just can't follow it. Would it be better if I just came out and said, I've heard WFAN and 1050 ESPN hosts and callers, as well as members of the MOFO say whatever? AG/DC May 03 2008 10:23 AM Steve, I didn't say anything about a circular argument. I guess it's not the first time when it's unclear when you're speaking for yourself or on behalf of the media. SteveJRogers May 03 2008 10:26 AM ]While I agree with the general point, there are differences, -Hernandez often makes the point that after making the second out he was so damn disgusted that he just couldn't stand to be in the dugout and watch the season end (though it showed a lack of faith in Gary Carter) as opposed to the infamous card game where legend has it neither man knew of the outcome of the game until their dejected teammates started coming into the clubhouse. OE: Speaking of unfairly treated Mets, I'm LOOPER! AG/DC May 03 2008 10:30 AM And you quote that 'cuz... SteveJRogers May 03 2008 10:42 AM mm and you seem convinced that I'm backing down after you and FK argue against the points in my postings. AG/DC May 03 2008 10:51 AM I know not seem, Steve. I wrote that it's unclear when you're speaking on behalf of yourself or the media (or, as Thon mentions, some group of fans). I didn't say anything about backing down any more than I said anything about a circular argument. Are you arguing that you're not backing down (not that I'm saying you are). Because that would kind of not work with your outcry that I'm insisting on getting the last word in. cooby May 03 2008 12:14 PM SteveJRogers wrote: ="metsmarathon"]am i alone in never being able to figure out what the hell steve is talking about, and what his actual point is, because i can't for the life of me figure out what his point is, and whether its his point that he's making, or if he's manufacturing a point on the behalf of some mysterious unmentioned met fan collective... or is it just that when his point gets squashed and refuted that he then attributes it to the mysterious mythical met fan collective which allows him to then distance himself from his own point... i can't tell, because i just can't follow it. Would it be better if I just came out and said, I've heard WFAN and 1050 ESPN hosts and callers, as well as members of the MOFO say whatever? Steve, you are a nice man and seem to be easily influenced by the opinions of others. But three groups of people that I can immediately think of off the top of my head that you should never ever ever allow to influence you in any way are MOFO posters and ESPN and/or WFAN callers. metsmarathon May 03 2008 07:49 PM SteveJRogers wrote: ="metsmarathon"]am i alone in never being able to figure out what the hell steve is talking about, and what his actual point is, because i can't for the life of me figure out what his point is, and whether its his point that he's making, or if he's manufacturing a point on the behalf of some mysterious unmentioned met fan collective... or is it just that when his point gets squashed and refuted that he then attributes it to the mysterious mythical met fan collective which allows him to then distance himself from his own point... i can't tell, because i just can't follow it. Would it be better if I just came out and said, I've heard WFAN and 1050 ESPN hosts and callers, as well as members of the MOFO say whatever? yes. always cite your source. duh. especially when that source is you. Triple Dee May 07 2008 07:43 AM G-Fafif wrote: From Tom Verducci's masterful 2003 SI profile, [url=http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1029027/1/index.htm]"What Is Rickey Henderson Doing In Newark?"[/url]: ]Mets manager Bobby Valentine removed Henderson from Game 6 of the 1999 NLCS, replacing him with Melvin Mora. New York lost on a series-ending bases-loaded walk by Kenny Rogers. Henderson reportedly was in the clubhouse playing cards with teammate Bobby Bonilla when the deciding run scored. Asked about the incident, Henderson offers a qualified denial: "Kenny Rogers came in the clubhouse, and we was playing cards? If Kenny Rogers made it off that mound and we was playing cards, everybody in America, even the press, would have been there when we were playing. So you can't say that. "Was it an excuse? These two guys [Henderson and Bonilla], you had took us out. We tied the game up, and you took me and him right back out of the game. What for? For defensive purposes that you said? Moore [sic]? That's your judgment, and you're my chief and you're the manager. And I have no say-so. Does it frustrate me? Yes, because during the postseason I feel that's when the people that's gonna rise to the top should rise to the top, and I feel I was always one of them type of players." What he said. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I don't believe it was the act of playing cards that infuriated everybody, but rather what Henderson said in his post game comments: "I was heartbroken. I had 2 pairs but Bobby had 3 jacks" That quote would make an awesome sig btw.