Mets Geek » Blog Archive » The Fans’ Problem

May 7, 2008

The Fans’ Problem

Scribbled by: John Peterson @ 12:41 am | Filed under: Articles

“In our mind, we moved on,” Randolph said of last season’s historic meltdown. “Obviously, the fans are having a tough time moving past that.

This is the kind of attitude that I detest from Randolph, and the Mets organization as a whole. I alluded to it in my blog weeks ago:

How long will the Mets allow this manager to perpetrate this message to his players: “we are here to earn paychecks, nothing more,” a message that finds its way out on the field, into the stadium and the papers, upsetting our very notions of glory as sports fans?

Sit down, Lastings! No celebrations, José! We’re not devastated. We’re fine. You’re the ones who are devastated. You fans, you boors in the seats. Get a job, loser.

Since then, notable Randolph-apologist blogs like Mets Today and MetsBlog have declared that Willie must change his attitude. But respected columnists like Michael Salfino and Tim Marchman have suggested that Randolph doesn’t have it in him to change.

Willie seems like a nice guy, really. The impersonality of the Internet medium often makes things look harsher than they are. But Mets Today, a blog that has supported Randolph and never called for his firing, hits the right note when it sarcastically responds to Willie’s “we’re going to make them real proud before the year is over,” with a sarcastic “yeah, Willie, I can taste the Champagne now,” referencing Willie’s comments during last season’s downslide that the champagne would taste sweeter for the difficulty of putting the division away.

I am not so lighthearted about it. The way I see it is that the failure of the Mets under Randolph is systemic. It didn’t start in 2008, but in 2005. Here is a short list of those failures:

1) Inability to correctly assess the talent on the team.
2) Fierce, crippling loyalty to veterans and damaging treatment of young players.
3) Poor lineup construction.
4) No fire. Does not get argue vociferously and get ejected, giving umpires permission to give the benefit of the doubt to the other team.
5) Unwillingness and/or inability to change.

Of course these faults are shared by many other managers in baseball, but few combine them with as much obstinacy and arrogance as Randolph.

It’s no secret that the Mets collapsed last September. Opposing broadcasters, to whom I often have the misfortune of listening, cite it without fail, often making “collapse” the meat of a word sandwich with “worst” and “ever” as the bread. Last year happened. 2006 happened. Yet the Mets organization treats its fans with the glib marketing of an advertising salesman for SNY. We have a fantastic on-field product. We compete every year. Attendence is up. A beautiful new ballpark is coming. What could be wrong?

The problem is that the fans are not placing ads on SNY. And unlike advertisers and the illusory demographics they “target,” they have souls and memories that are still scarred from 2006 and 2007. But what did the Mets do? What did they change? What did they do to heal our wounds?

With things going so well from a business perspective, why should they shake things up at all? Randolph shaved his mustache. Writers everywhere commended the Mets on thinking long-term and not being trigger-happy.

The offseason was typical. The Mets continued in their old ways, re-signing veterans like Luis Castillo and trading young talent for old. While the trade of Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider will almost certainly be a win for the Nationals in the long-term, the Mets probably helped their own short-term chances. But the message it sent was clear: youth and enthusiasm are not welcome on this ballclub.

While the Milledge trade was reviled by all but the staunchest and most loyal of baseball writers, the other big winter trade was almost universally praised. After all, the Mets gave up less than other teams had reportedly offered and acquired one of the best young pitchers in baseball in Johan Santana.

The trade sent the message that the team would win and it would do it now. It wasn’t especially imaginative or one-sided. The Mets, as usual, traded away youth for experience, unknown players for a known one. Then they signed that player to a record-breaking contract.

Even now, I would not make the deal. Only for so long can a team load itself with big contracts in a bid to win it all and fail to do so. At some point there needs to be some long-term stability. But this is what the Mets organization wanted. They wanted to bring home some hardware and put in their new stadium. Everything they have done in the last few seasons has been to achieve this goal. They’ve hyped everything to the max. They’ve pumped us up, and we’re ready to win. So how can the organization criticize the fans for their impatience when they have shown no patience of their own?

The play is lackadaisical. Willie says chill-ax. The Mets act like they don’t care if they win or lose, because they still get paid in the end. And even the most crushing failure—missing the playoffs last year—results in no punishment for anyone, not even the manager, who heaps the blame on the players and takes a pat on the back from the front office.

Right, that was last year. But what has changed from one year to the next? Are the Mets destroying their opponents left and right? Are they playing with a fire not seen since the Valentine years of the late 90’s? Is there an evident determination in their hearts? Is there a sense of destiny, a rightful taking of what is theirs? There is not.

It is not May 7th, 2008, too early to complain. It is September 31st, 2007. The Mets organization wants us to forget as they have, but we cannot. That is why we call for Randolph’s head. That is why we boo.

John Peterson hates old players on principle. You can read his stylized ravings regularly at Blastings! Thrilledge.

44 Responses to “The Fans’ Problem”

Comment posted by Simons on May 7, 2008 at 1:44 am (#684553)
I think the “We need to fire Randolph” meme might spread faster than anyone expects. Another loss here, another tabloid column there, before you know it the thing has taken on a life of its own and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The tipping point could come any day now.
Comment posted by Chris McCown on May 7, 2008 at 4:10 am (#684614)
It’s no secret that the Mets collapsed last September. Opposing broadcasters, to whom I often have the misfortune of listening, cite it without fail, often making “collapse” the meat of a word sandwich with “worst” and “ever” as the bread. Last year happened. 2006 happened. Yet the Mets organization treats its fans with the glib marketing of an advertising salesman for SNY. We have a fantastic on-field product. We compete every year. Attendence is up. A beautiful new ballpark is coming. What could be wrong?

The problem is that the fans are not placing ads on SNY. And unlike advertisers and the illusory demographics they “target,” they have souls and memories that are still scarred from 2006 and 2007. But what did the Mets do? What did they change? What did they do to heal our wounds?

I’m curious as to how you feel the Mets should treat this from a psychological perspective. Maybe I’m just getting further and further away from the old heart-on-the-sleeve fan than I used to be, but I think pain has become more and more of a media narrative then an actual emotion.

2007 happened. 2006 happened. Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano happened. The 2000 World Series happened. Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden ruining their careers happened. Tom Seaver getting traded happened. Steve Chilcotte being picked over Reggie Jackson happened. That’s not to say that the Mets media narrative isn’t overly corporate or that our voices as fans matter (see: The Rickrolling Shea Stadium solution), but dwelling on the past never leads one anywhere. All one can do is look at the past, see what works and what doesn’t, and go from there. What other options are there but for the upper hierarchy? Should they come out and say another year out of the playoffs wouldn’t be tolerated even though everyone pretty much already guessed that, putting more pressure on Willie? Should they actively build all reasoning around the fact that the collapse happened and go for the other side of delusion (i.e. we have our ace, now the long losing streaks are over)? I think the org’s message is fine, if a little focus-grouped.

Now clubhouse wise, I think you’ve got a point, and I think Willie should have been gone. Not even for his demeanor, but for the simple fact that he’s not a good tactical manager and never will be as long as he lives by his creed.
Comment posted by Ed in Westchester 2.0 on May 7, 2008 at 7:00 am (#684615)
John - Willie didn’t tell Jose to stop. He did it on his own. Willie is on record as saying he has no problem with the celebrations.

It was the media and some fans who made a stink about the celebrating.

This whole fans vs the Mets thing is exacerbated by people playing armchair psychologist and trying to say the Mets don’t care, have no energy, or that they think the fans need to “get a job loser”.

When a guy gets booed BEFORE he takes a swing or throws a pitch, that’s just wrong. And sadly, many of our fellow fans do this. Then they get all pissed off when a guy won’t take a curtain call. Then the media fans the flames.

Willie was right. Fans haven’t moved on. The players try to, but get constant reminders.

I want someone to tell me how the Mets can prove “they care”. I think the definition varies from fan to fan.
Comment posted by Eli on May 7, 2008 at 8:07 am (#684623)
Great article John. I think that Willie is right that the Mets fans are having a hard time getting past “it” and I think you are also right that if the management geared everything to winning now, they need to pay the piper if they fail to win now - i.e. incur the fans’ wrath.

The Mets, as usual, traded away youth for experience, unknown players for a known one. Then they signed that player to a record-breaking contract.
Even now, I would not make the deal.

Sitting safely behind my computer screen, nor would I make the Santana trade. But that’s mostly because I loath that big market clubs can buy most of the good players. I don’t want to win that way. I would rather lose with young players brought up through the system than win only because I have more money than my opponent. However, if I am Omar, and I was hired to “win now”, I think I would have little choice but to pull the trigger on that trade.
Comment posted by fatt lipp on May 7, 2008 at 8:36 am (#684626)
John, while I think the article was a little hyperbolic and shrill in spots, overall I believe you’re on the mark.

I’ll add another thought. Widiot is worse than stubborn; he’s stubborn and not too smart. That’s a dangerous combination. When one is in over one’s head strategically/intellectually, the best way to avoid being found out is to build a wall, disclose next to nothing, and lean on “I went with my gut.” (Of course you rely on your gut when you can’t rely on your head.) And when one is insecure about one’s intellect, one does not change course, as that can indicate that a wrong move was made initially. (Smart people have the confidence to admit mistakes; not-so-smart people, not so much.)

I’ve said it before: The game moves a little too fast for Widiot.
Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 7, 2008 at 8:43 am (#684627)
I’m going to have to disagree parts of this journal while agreeing with the whole. I’m of the opinion the Mets need a change and firing Willie is probably the only viable option available to Omar. Frankly, I don’t care if he argues calls, makes bad lineups, etc. I know what the Mets problem is this season and it has nothing to do with management. It’s that the middle of the order hitters aren’t doing their jobs.

I think Willie is right. I think the Mets are getting the shaft from the fans because they can’t start the season anew. And it sickens me that those fans call themselves fans. Yes, the Mets collapsed last season and you know what? They went out and got themselves an ace for what most of baseball considers PEANUTS.

Which brings me to me final disagreement of the day. Trading for and then signing Santana was one of the shrewdest, most necessary moves I’ve seen Omar make and I was very proud of the front office after that. I just don’t understand how people are suddenly against it now.
Comment posted by fatt lipp on May 7, 2008 at 8:45 am (#684628)
Can you imagine our rotation right now without Santana? Can you say train wreck?
Comment posted by Ed in Westchester 2.0 on May 7, 2008 at 8:45 am (#684629)
Lunk - people are against the Sanatana deal because we gave up youth. No matter that outside of Gomez, none of them are ready to help the team this year. The farm was “depleted”.
The funny thing is those guys traded weren’t supposed to be that good according to the “experts”.
Comment posted by Dep on May 7, 2008 at 9:44 am (#684634)
amazing how no one remembers teams quitting on Bobby V.

I want Willie fired too, but i had no problem with comments.

the average fan at shea has acted like a big douche this year.

there’s really no denying that.
Comment posted by Danny on May 7, 2008 at 9:44 am (#684635)
Terrific and thought-provoking article, John. I hate trading youth as much as any reasonable fan but I do the Santana trade 100 times out of 100. The problem is, and the Santana trade will get sort of merged in to this for the more fanatical against this approach, the Mets 97% of the time make the win move now. Where has it gotten us?

Expectations are a funny thing. I still want to believe that our fanbase is smart, even as they act liked spoiled jackals at Shea Stadium this year (where the team is 9-5 and still get booed incessantly). But, this is where I agree with John in totality:

Only for so long can a team load itself with big contracts in a bid to win it all and fail to do so. At some point there needs to be some long-term stability. But this is what the Mets organization wanted. They wanted to bring home some hardware and put in their new stadium. Everything they have done in the last few seasons has been to achieve this goal. They’ve hyped everything to the max. They’ve pumped us up, and we’re ready to win.

It doesn’t excuse the fan behavior for me. But what if the Mets took a more long-term philosophy to building this team for a championship run? Would the fans really be acting so entitled? The Mets created the expectations, and then have failed miserably to meet them. It’s created a really negative atmosphere.

How you do cultivate a positive atmosphere and get rid of some of the stink? We tried firing the hitting coach last year, and that didn’t work. The Jacket is one of the most respected pitching coaches in the game and I don’t see the value is depositing him.

You fire the manager. It’s the only way to start enacting some change. And if we don’t improve soon, Omar’s next.
Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 7, 2008 at 9:59 am (#684647)
The Mets did develop from youth. They did everything right leading up to 2006. They developed a young core, signed necessary free agents still in their primes (Beltran) to supplement the youth and then filled in the roster to build the team. People forget: a youth movement really only builds a core of talent. You then build around that core. The Mets put together Reyes, Wright and Beltran. That was a good young core.
Comment posted by Danny on May 7, 2008 at 10:14 am (#684659)
It’s kind of hard to say we developed from youth when we had the oldest team in baseball in 2006.
Comment posted by Ed in Westchester 2.0 on May 7, 2008 at 10:28 am (#684675)
But two of our key pieces, Reyes and Wright, are young. Beltran is as well. The problem is there is not a LOT of youth.

The other problem is that the team has drafted like #### the past several years overall, so there isn’t much there to replace the older guys. (Yes, they did make a few good picks, but overall, it has not been a great last few years in the draft).

And some of the young guys drafted or otherwise acquired have been dealt or let go.

It is a delicate balancing act that few teams can manage.
Comment posted by Eli on May 7, 2008 at 10:50 am (#684697)
overall, it has not been a great last few years in the draft

So, if this true, why does Omar get a free ride here? Or is he not responsible for this? All I hear is how he is tapping the relatively untapped Latino resource, when we suck from Savannah to Binghamton.
Comment posted by Lister on May 7, 2008 at 11:10 am (#684716)
People will disagree about how much impact the manager can even have on a ball club, and they’re right to be skeptical. I myself am not sure how much of an improvement replacing Willie might constitute. But the plainest fact is that this team has chronically underperformed for going on a calendar year now, and that’s for better or worse about as clean cut a case against a manager as you can make. I’m not looking at the numbers right now, but I’m pretty sure that excluding April last year we were right around .500, no? And that’s where we are after April now. This team can win with Willie, no doubt about that. But, at the same time, it’s been a really long time during which Willie has simply not been getting the results that he ought to be getting.

I have held out for a long time that firing Willie is misguided, but I realize at this point it’s just got to happen.

We have no real ways to change this ballclub in terms of who we field, whether in-house or by trade, so the leadership has to clear out. You did overall nice work, Willie, but I think everyone is ready for a change of pace.
Comment posted by Bill W on May 7, 2008 at 12:40 pm (#684820)
“Arguing vociferously and getting ejected” does not have any importance whatsoever re winning, that’s like the “chemistry” horses**t Jim Leyland rightfully derided a few weeks ago; fodder for lazy columnists. Randolph’s inflexibility and Minaya’s deals like the Castillo one are bigger problems.

Maybe its my age — I’ve been a Mets fan since ‘71 — but I HAVE “moved past” the Collapse. It’s baseball, it’s not life & death.
Comment posted by JK47 on May 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm (#684834)
Willie is lame, no question about it. But the real blame lies at the feet of the GM.

This team is counting on creaky, past-prime veterans at 1B, 2B and LF, with no good backup options at any of those positions. Omar has assembled a club with very little depth, and as a result we’re seeing way too much playing time for guys like Angel Pagan and Raul Casanova. The Mets are 12th in the league in runs scored. Mets’ first basemen are slugging .364, while left fielders are slugging .325. A healthy Moises Alou will hopefully help matters, but if you’re counting on the health of Moises Alou to save your season, it’s obvious what kind of trouble you’re in.

This is not a good offensive club. This team will need extraordinary pitching if it’s going to contend, and quite frankly I don’t see that on the horizon either. The K/BB numbers of all the Mets pitchers not named Santana or Wagner are quite disheartening.
Comment posted by John Peterson on May 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm (#684837)
I don’t want to defend the fans being jerks. I mean, booing Santana in his first start? Booing relentlessly and tactlessly? I’m not making excuses for their boorishness. I’m just trying to put it in perspective.

I am still hurt by the memories of 2006 and 2007. That’s just the way I am. And I do think that Randolph is in some way responsible for the collapse last year. I don’t know how much good firing him would do, but the Mets not firing him sent a pretty bad message to the fans, I think.
Comment posted by Peter H on May 7, 2008 at 1:25 pm (#684841)
If Wilie is fired, who replaces him? Jerry Manuel? He seems like he’s cut from the same cloth as Randolph -laid-back, relies more on his gut than numbers, etc.

I suppose Ken Oberkfell might be an intersting choice, but I don’t see the Mets doing that yet.
Comment posted by Jessica on May 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm (#684911)
I think one thing that often gets overlooked in the discussion of the fan issues is the ticket price increase/lack of Citi Field guarantees for anything less than a full season plan. I know a lot of long-time weekend plan holders who are really upset about that, and while they’re the kind of people who would never think of booing their own team at a game, I’m sure that plenty of others in the same boat don’t have that restraint.
Comment posted by Milo on May 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm (#684939)
“This is not a good offensive club. This team will need
extraordinary pitching if it’s going to contend, and
quite frankly I don’t see that on the horizon either.
The K/BB numbers of all the Mets pitchers not named
Santana or Wagner are quite disheartening.”

I agree so far in the season, I really think this team
doesn’t pack enough pop. Schneider, Castillo and the
pitcher’s spot (Or as I like to call them, murderer’s
row)is going to generate next to no offense this
season.
Comment posted by John Peterson on May 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm (#684942)
Some really good points here.

Lunk- the Mets do have a good young core. However, I’m convinced that if the Mets were as competitive in the early part of this decade as they are now, Jose Reyes and David Wright would never have developed as Mets. We would be playing with guys like Juan Uribe and Pedro Feliz to go with the downside of Carlos Delgado’s and Luis Castillo’s careers. No, Joe Crede and Carlos Guillen.
Comment posted by Danny on May 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm (#684954)
I refuse to give the Mets too much credit for keeping Reyes and Wright around. They were elite prospects and absolute no-brainers. Trading them for any fix would have been idiotic.
Comment posted by gentry on May 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm (#685383)
What the heck do you want Willie and the players to do? Do you want them to cry? Do you want them to wail over last years collapse? Would that make you feel better?

Get over yourself. You and all the BS “they don’t try hard enough” fans. Do you have any idea what its like to do what they do? Quit your whining. Do you ever think that its you and your a-hole booing that keeps them from getting over last year and playing up to their potential?

They are trying to get past last year. They are trying to be professional baseball players and not wear their devastation out in public. If you want to run around with your shorts around your waist, feel free. But that’s not their job. Their job is to get over last year and play ball. Something you and your pathetic cry baby boo-birding fans won’t allow them to do.

You want them to be 35-5 in May, and anything else is suicide worthy and they aren’t playing hard enough. Maybe it’s the ridiculously unrealistic expectations that are keeping them down - and a fan base that wouldn’t be happy apart from perfection.

It’s freakin May dude. Don’t blame Willie. Look in the mirror first.
Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm (#685474)
If you want to run around with your shorts around your waist, feel free.

I’m trying to figure that one out as we speak.

It’s freakin May dude. Don’t blame Willie. Look in the mirror first.

Hey, baby! Who’s that hot thang?
Comment posted by Dep on May 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm (#685492)
I would settle for 30-10

maybe 28-12

i’m easy to please.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:12 pm (#685510)
John, I think your taking one part of Willie’s quote out of the original context of his overall comments is unfair to the man. I am not his greatest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but you should at least read the whole statement Willie made when a reporter specifically asked him about the issue of fan negativity:

“When we start to play well, then you’ll start to see a change in all that. As far as my players, we don’t talk about it. We don’t concern ourselves with it…Obviously the fans are having a tough time moving past (last season). So we just hope that they eventually get behind this team, because we’re going to make them real proud before the year is over…We live in an environment where they want it when they want it. Believe me, our team is really solid. We look at ourselves. I don’t think we define who we are by the reaction we get. We have some veteran guys. We have some young guys. We’re a real close-knit group. We know we’re not going to be good all the time, but we know mentally where we want to go, where we want to be…We’re going to go through ups and downs, go through the scuttlebutt, but we understand that in this town, that’s how it’s going to be.”
Comment posted by Ed in Westchester 2.0 on May 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm (#685517)
No Dep, they should be undefeated.

Nothing less than perfection.
Comment posted by Danny on May 7, 2008 at 5:17 pm (#685521)
Gentry, I don’t understand why you came here with such vile. We were having a responsible debate about Willie and his merits as this team’s manager.

These are the wrong fans to scream at.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm (#685523)
We’re going to go through ups and downs, go through the scuttlebutt, but we understand that in this town, that’s how it’s going to be.”

I want to emphasize this part of the quote as well.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:25 pm (#685530)
While the trade of Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider will almost certainly be a win for the Nationals in the long-term, the Mets probably helped their own short-term chances. But the message it sent was clear: youth and enthusiasm are not welcome on this ballclub.

I also ####ing hate this line of reasoning of course. Of course any trade where a younger, talented player is traded for an older veteran(s) the team who trade for the younger player will benefit in the vague and general “longterm”. In 5 years, Church will be 34-35 and Milledge will 28 years old. People who crapped on the trade and now cannot deny that Church has been or damn close to our team MVP this season love to fall back on this argument to save face. The issue is whether or not we can squeeze 2-3 really productive years out of Church where he outproduces Milledge. So far, its played out well and if we can than trading away Lastings is secondary issue.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:35 pm (#685537)
BTW, Lastings Milledge is producing a whopping .689 OPS this year. We may not have his “youth” and “ethusiasm”, but we sure do have someone who has a significantly better OPS (.905 coming into today before he went 3 for 4 with a homerun) than Luis Castillo’s .626 line.
Comment posted by SoCal Metfan on May 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm (#685542)
I can’t remember an article on the Geek that I disagreed with more.

And I don’t even like Willie, and wouldn’t mind seeing him fired. I just think the reasoning in this article is just based on rash emotion.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm (#685552)
SoCal, I agree on both counts: I am not a Willie fan who would like to see him fired and I also think article is unfairly in poorly reasoned.
Comment posted by The Chinatown Chicken on May 7, 2008 at 5:53 pm (#685581)
It is not May 7th, 2008, too early to complain. It is September 31st, 2007. The Mets organization wants us to forget as they have, but we cannot. That is why we call for Randolph’s head. That is why we boo.

Are you condoning booing? Why hasn’t anyone grilled this?
Comment posted by Simons on May 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm (#685599)
I just think the reasoning in this article is just based on rash emotion

I just think the grammar of that sentence just doesn’t make rash sense
Comment posted by Dep on May 7, 2008 at 6:04 pm (#685600)
I saw that, i almost took it to task. whatever, its so silly it didnt even deserve a response IMO.

Beltran got boo’d in 2006. BEFORE 2007. so people can wrap a nice bow around “why we boo” all they want. its BS.

ppl can apply all this logic, reasoning and rationale for booing, when in reality its a bunch of drunk a**holes with a sense of entitlement doing it.

You can think the ppl booing have this solid foundation of reason for doing it, maybe some do, the majority dont.

If the collapse and the mets organizationally thinking is why ppl boo, then why did beltran get boo’d in 2006?

drunk. jerks. sense of entitlement.

thats get you closer to the real answer that whatever BS was spun up above.
Comment posted by SoCal Metfan on May 7, 2008 at 6:53 pm (#685671)
Mangled grammar aside, I stand by my main point, which I don’t believe was lost in the post.
Comment posted by Dep on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 pm (#685672)
Just to clarify what i wrote in 37. i dont think everyone that boo’s is a drunken idiot, but i do feel the majority are.

i’m sure some people are very sensible and logical and have rational for the booing like john outlines, but imo, most dont.

that is all!
Comment posted by John Peterson on May 7, 2008 at 7:07 pm (#685686)
For the record, I don’t boo at games. Never have. Please see comment #18.

Also, some of the commenters who joined this discussion “gentry” decided a set a new and disappointing tone are just being jerks. Kind of like booing your own players.

The point of the article is a response to people who say things like, “The Mets are 16-14 (or whatever). It’s FREAKING May!” and then add something about how the Mets losing games is not Randolph’s fault. These things are irrelevant. The Mets set the tone of win-now urgency, and the fans are only following suit.

But I’m even sure what some of you are arguing about. I’m gonna go run around with my shorts around my waist.
Comment posted by John Peterson on May 7, 2008 at 7:10 pm (#685688)
That should read “… joined this discussion after “gentry” decided a set a new…”

And “But I’m not even sure…”
Comment posted by John Peterson on May 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm (#685708)
There is some more discussion on pages 7 and 8 of the 5/7 game thread.
Comment posted by Simons on May 7, 2008 at 11:20 pm (#685885)
I’m sorry about post #36. That was just rude.
Comment posted by e poc on May 8, 2008 at 5:09 pm (#686557)
i guess this thread is pretty much done, but i wonder why anyone is changing their opinion of the milledge trade after 35 games. just because church is playing over his head through the first month and milledge is struggling (a problem endemic to the nats hitters, actually, it seems, possibly a result of lenny harris’ hitting philosophy) does not mean we should change our opinions of whether that trade was a good one, even for the current season. i know there were a lot of people who initially thought it was good for the present (or good overall), but there are some who didn’t see anything but a marginal 2008 boon between milledge and church or estrada and schneider, and that should still be the case. church (and schneider, for that matter) is not as good as he seems right now, and milledge is not as bad. that trade helped the mets through the first month of this year, but that doesn’t make it any more likely to have helped us in 2008 as a whole.