Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Honestly with Mike I think the Mets wait is the same issue as the HOF wait, all the innuendo and rumors. I think when (if?) Mike gets enshrined the Mets will officially retire the number then. They might not be issuing 17 now but I remember Luis Lopez wearing it at one point. We also know 5 is going to be retired in the distant future especially since unlike the Mets other homegrown stars it does look like David will finish his career here or close enough, and not have a Darryl/Doc type scandal black mark. With the Yankees, I understand there's a mystique about 'The Core Four' but that doesn't mean they should all get their number retired. Especially when the Yankees have so many numbers retired already, the standards for a number retirement should only get harder at that point, not easier. Yet ironically they're not retiring Torre's number and he does deserve it. So there's clearly politics involved. #5 will probably get retired, yes. I hope it's not in a "he was our lovable loser" kind of way, where he kind of limps to pretty good-looking overall Met numbers (.275 BA, .357 OB%, 320 HR, 1250 RBI) simply because he played here forever. I'll sign up for 2012 Wright for the next few seasons and take it happily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I think that's the case. I remember Gary Carter lobbied to go in as a Met, then he offered a compromise to do a half Mets half Expos cap...but they forced the full Expos hat on him anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) It's funny...Carlos probably should've signed with the Yankees or stayed with the Astros. They loved him in Houston, and with the Yankees he would have been part of an ensemble cast. I don't think his heart was ever into being a Met. That doesn't mean I don't think he tried or didn't care...I just don't think he ever really embraced it or loved it here. I don't think he ever forgave the fans for booing him off a lousy 2005 and during the first two games in 2006...I remember Julio Franco having to coax him out of the dugout after he hit one of two homers in the third game of the 2006 season. Something was just never quite right with him and the Mets...probably was just a little too sensitive for New York. Edited February 17, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 It's funny...Carlos probably should've signed with the Yankees or stayed with the Astros. They loved him in Houston, and with the Yankees he would have been part of an ensemble cast. I don't think his heart was ever into being a Met. That doesn't mean I don't think he tried or didn't care...I just don't think he ever really embraced it or loved it here. I don't think he ever forgave the fans for booing him off a lousy 2005 and during the first two games in 2006...I remember Julio Franco having to coax him out of the dugout after he hit one of two homers in the third game of the 2006 season. Something was just never quite right with him and the Mets...probably was just a little too sensitive for New York. And it was from the very beginning. He has a surprisingly lackluster year 1...then he broke his face with the collision with Cameron. Came back quickly and the fans adored him for like a few weeks (his once brief grace period with Mets fans) and yes the entire time he seemed very detached. Unlike Pedro who embraced the Mets and tried to change the culture, Carlos pretty much treated the Mets like a consolation prize. And then you had that Walter Reed hospital visit that he skipped that really pissed off a lot of Mets fans (especially vets) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And it was from the very beginning. He has a surprisingly lackluster year 1...then he broke his face with the collision with Cameron. Came back quickly and the fans adored him for like a few weeks (his once brief grace period with Mets fans) and yes the entire time he seemed very detached. Unlike Pedro who embraced the Mets and tried to change the culture, Carlos pretty much treated the Mets like a consolation prize. And then you had that Walter Reed hospital visit that he skipped that really pissed off a lot of Mets fans (especially vets) Yeah, he seemed very aloof, cold, distant, indifferent, whatever you want to call it. He came here for the money...doesn't make him a bad guy, countless players have done that, but he had this way of making Met fans feel like that really was his only reason for signing up. Add in that his signature moment came in a playoff-ending K, and it's that much easier for Met fans to not remember him all that fondly (in spite of some very pretty numbers that somehow look better as time passes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12368493/cuban-prospect-yoan-moncada-signs-boston-red-sox Oh well...some GMs actually go out and take care of their needs, other ones make jokes about their inability to do just that. We know which category Lazy Boy fits into. That being said, Sox are banking on this kid making it and being a good player. Bit of a risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12368493/cuban-prospect-yoan-moncada-signs-boston-red-sox Oh well...some GMs actually go out and take care of their needs, other ones make jokes about their inability to do just that. We know which category Lazy Boy fits into. That being said, Sox are banking on this kid making it and being a good player. Bit of a risk. Good for the Sox beating out the Yankees for this kid (I was sure he was a lock for NYY) The Mets at one time used to at least express interest, but now they don't even dip their toe in the water. We miss out on literally every single international talent. This goes way back to when Bobby V told us to get Ichiro and we botched that...them tried to make up for it by signing Tsuyoshi Shinjo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 lol I never heard that one about Ichiro and Shinjo but it doesn't shock me either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The Mets did nab Kazuo Matsui way back when. He obviously didn't really work out, but he was a guy teams were definitely interested in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 You just know this is going to be an issue: http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/02/mets_first_baseman_lucas_duda_will_miss_more_time.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Suffice it to say I wasn't surprised when I saw that follow-up yesterday after the intial downplaying of the intercostal strain At least it's the start of spring training though. It's not like Duda was geting a lot of AB's last spring and early in the season anyway when they had their hydra of first basemen around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 I would shut Duda down for extra long just as a precautionary measure. Last thing we need is him coming back and re aggravating it, then injuring something else trying to compensate. It may seem harmless now but a lot of things that blow up during the regular season start off as harmless pin pricks like this. As a Met fan I'm a scalded dog when it comes to injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Suffice it to say I wasn't surprised when I saw that follow-up yesterday after the intial downplaying of the intercostal strain At least it's the start of spring training though. It's not like Duda was geting a lot of AB's last spring and early in the season anyway when they had their hydra of first basemen around. Speaking of...wouldn't shock me if Davis was respectable in Oakland this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Speaking of...wouldn't shock me if Davis was respectable in Oakland this year. He's become a pretty good OB%-guy. Beane covets players like that. Supposedly Ike is going to be platooned with the As. Some articles being written about Murph's situation, re: his upcoming free agency. We'll be seeing a lot of those. Everything points to what we pretty much thought: Mets will let him play out his contract and let him walk. Unless Murph gets hurt or hits so poorly and Herrera gets a chance and makes it impossible for Murph to get his job back, I'm not really sure how this could play out any other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Guess who apparently didn't put his nose to the grind this offseason. Matthew Cerrone, MetsBlog.com I want to believe in Wilmer Flores, and I think he’ll be fine, but it’s so clear watching him and Ruben Tejada that neither is an ideal option in the field. Tejada is more natural, obviously, but even he is not very quick in his movements, throws, footwork, etc… In fact, still, I hear Terry Collins taking shots at Ruben’s speed and hustle, while joking out loud to fans edging the infield. That said, while they made every routine play, it’s just a lot of anxious feet, locked ankles and hard hands Collins doesn’t mind Jose Reyes criticizing Ruben Tejada March 1, 2015, 8:10 am Terry Collins said he has no problem with Jays SS Jose Reyes being critical of Ruben Tejada. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with one of your peers challenging you once in a while,” Collins said (Newsday, Mar. 1). “Reyes is a guy who gets ready to play. I think the world of Jose Reyes. Apparently, he may know something I don’t. … They were good buddies when they were here and I think Jose might know some things that I don’t know.” Freakin Tejada. It's like he never wants to get better. And Terry is not even trying to defend him anymore. And it's already March. It's like that Tracy Morgan line about women and exercise "If you're not in shape by June 21st, YOU'RE GONNA BE FAT ALL SUMMER" Tejada let another offseason go by and clearly did not put any work into his speed and quickness. The guy gets down the line like Babe Ruth. And not the actual Babe Ruth...John Goodman circa 1992 playing Babe Ruth Edited March 2, 2015 by '7' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Wow that's pretty bad when Mr. Happy Go Lucky (Reyes) calls you out in the media, and he's a buddy too Edited March 2, 2015 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 So why the fvck is Ruben still here Sandy? That's what the joke is...and seriously, why should a guy like Tejada feel any urgency, given the way he's been handled? Apparently he still gets to be here no matter what...sure, Sandy and Terry (who is coming across as more befuddled and moronic every day in soundbytes) can crack jokes about him still being here, but they continue to allow it to go on. Hopefully this is the season the Mets actually start holding players accountable. Reyes isn't really one to talk...sure, he's infinitely more talented, which makes Mets fans remember him more fondly, but he had a lot of mental lapses in his game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) With no "real" spring training games having been played yet, of course writers need to find things to write about. Apparently David Wright scolded Noah Syndergaard during an intrasquad game...basically Syndergaard was trying to grab lunch in the clubhouse instead of being out on the bench watching the game, so Wright told him to go sit on the bench so he could watch and learn. Apparently he didn't move fast enough for Bobby Parnell's liking, so Parnell then threw out Syndergaard's lunch plate. It's not a big deal at all...just a couple of vets trying to show a kid better ways to conduct himself...but it will likely get more mileage than it deserves, and some will try to make it into some big statement. If the Mets wind up being a winning team this year, watch at least one writer dub this moment as the "turning point" of the franchise. And here comes Murph, who really needs to wake up and smell 2015. Apparently, he has a problem with the "gay lifestyle" and doesn't agree with it. This came up due to Billy Bean (not to be confused with Billy Beane), MLB's "inclusion ambassador", being at the Mets' spring training facility yesterday. For some reason, Murph just felt like it was so important to share the following: "I disagree with his lifestyle," Murphy said. "I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn't mean I can't still invest in him and get to know him. I don't think the fact that someone is a homosexual should completely shut the door on investing in them in a relational aspect. Getting to know him. That, I would say, you can still accept them but I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100 percent." But Murphy also saw the moment as an opening for a conversation and an avenue to get past stereotypes. The issue, he says, was "uncharted territory." While there may be a perception that Christian athletes may not be accepting of gay players, Murphy says it is not the case. "Maybe, as a Christian, that we haven't been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality," he said. "We love the people. We disagree with the lifestyle. That's the way I would describe it for me. It's the same way that there are aspects of my life that I'm trying to surrender to Christ in my own life. There's a great deal of many things, like my pride. I just think that as a believer trying to articulate it in a way that says just because I disagree with the lifestyle doesn't mean I'm just never going to speak to Billy Bean every time he walks through the door. That's not love. That's not love at all." First off Dan, who the fvck was asking for your approval of the "gay lifestyle"? If you don't agree with it, can't you just keep that to yourself? I guess the good news for Billy is that you're able to get over yourself just enough to deem that Billy, despite being openly gay, is still worth getting to know. Thank God for that...I guess Billy can sleep easier now. You (and those who share your beliefs) "love the people"? Really Dan? Keep in mind that quite a few of your fellow Bible-thumping cultists believers don't exactly show love towards homosexuals. Many Christians are just as likely to tell gays that they're going to burn in hell for their "choice" as much as they are to show what you seem to think is some kind of tolerable acceptance. So what exactly would you approve of, genius? Would it make you happier if Bean stayed closeted? Maybe it would make you happier if Bean conformed to what you think is "agreeable" and decided not to be true to himself, and lived what for him would be an elaborate and miserable heterosexual sham, the way many gays once did (and sadly still do). I guess you'd rather that he married a woman and had children and lived an "agreeable" heterosexual lifestyle, even though it would likely make everyone involved extremely unhappy in time. Hate to break it to you dummy, but there's always been gay people in the world, and there always will be. Many of them are no different than you and me, expect that they have a different sexual preference. That's it. They simply want to live their lives, make a living, enjoy their leisure time and be able to do it without having their sexuality criticized and judged. We have freedom of religion in this country, so you're allowed to believe in and practice your silly dated fairy tales and pick out of the Bible what is convenient for you, so knock yourself out. And you have the freedom of speech, so if you want to answer a question no one was asking and make yourself look like a brainwashed zealot in the process, again, knock yourself out. But just keep in mind that with every backwards reactionary statement you and the rest of your Christian followers make, you very strongly set back your cause. So nice job Danny boy. Great job. Edited March 4, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) It's actually not as bad as I thought it was going to be from the initial quotes I saw though Murphy comes off as a bit nieve when he says we haven't articulated our position when you see many public figures (politicians and the like) that have been perfectly clear about their beliefs that gays are heathens going against God and nature, not to mention the myriad of actual hate crimes and discrimination. Murphy makes his differences and many others' sound too innocuous like he was merely describing the difference between political beliefs when many clearly take it more personally than that. And I'll never understand the belief that being gay is a choice, you don't choose what you feel, especially when what you feel IS going to cause problems with many people. As far as the Wright/Parnell stuff well good for them, not really a big deal but when you're a kid that hasn't proven a thing you gotta be attentive to everything. Edited March 4, 2015 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Good point NJDevs, Murph doesn't seem to realize a lot of his brethren (both publicly and privately) have been VERY articulate in describing how they feel about gays. I really have to bite my tongue around some religious people...they can be so judgmental about it and can make gay people sound like the worst people on Earth when they get rolling. For me, it's just one of those things I wish people could just get past already (many have, but then Daniel Murphy-types speak and remind us all that no, this is really not OK after all). We're not in their bedrooms. Who cares if they want to get married? The "cheapens marriage, call it something else" defense is hilarious...the high divorce rate cheapened marriage a long time ago, and the only reason the divorce rate wasn't higher in the past is that women (due to very few career opportunities) often didn't have any other choice but to stay married. Sure, sometimes there's a Gay Pride parade or something like it where especially flamboyant gays might be a little too "in your face" for some. Most of them aren't like that, and most of them live their lives in a completely ordinary way. If Murph and his ilk don't like the gay community, so be it, but just keep it to yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 Interesting how Murphy was a darling last year with his paternity leave, but he might earn some scorn if this story grows legs. I hope it doesn't. His comments are very measured...but they do hint at some hostility towards gays. I'm sure he's shared a locker room with gay players before, statistics show its a virtual certainty that he has...I don't know, he's always come across as a fan favorite and good team guy but some things I wish never made it to print media, this being one of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) The problem with guys like Murph is that they get so wrapped in their religion that they don't realize that not everyone is as into Jesus as they are. For one, lot of religious practitioners aren't even Christians. For another, a lot of people think Christianity and every other religion on the planet is a bunch of superstitious bunk that should've run its course a long time ago. Murph and people like him make the mistake of thinking that believing in their God so strongly means you can just say whatever you want without repercussions, because they're the only ones who are "right", and everyone else is doomed to perish...sorry Murph, devout Christians don't speak for everyone, and gay people deserve to live their lives without you and your crowd telling them that they're wrong, or taking it even further by telling them they'll burn in hell. Even sadder is that there's probably lots of "enlightened" folks who read Murph's quotes and are saying "Right on...about time someone came out against those f****ts! I don't agree with that gay crap neither!" But yeah, I see Murph in different light now for sure...comments like his come off very badly to me, for the reasons I listed previously. Edited March 4, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Something else about yesterday...I was wondering exactly how long it would take for the media to report concerns about Syndergaard's makeup. The "red flags" were there just waiting to be blown up: 1) His struggles at AAA Vegas (I'm sorry, but pitching in that environment can fvck with a LOT of people's heads). 2) The Mets thinking it was a good idea to have Syndergaard hang with Harvey as much as possible (Noah is still pretty green...does the whole "tag along with Harvey" thing really have to be an indictment on him, and made to sound like Noah is lacking something?) 3) The whole lunch incident, which unfortunately got witnessed by just enough bored reporters to become something of a big deal (Wright actually apologized for taking Syndergaard to task with media within earshot) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/bitterbill/david-wright-apologizes-noah-blog-entry-1.2136871 So at the very least, Syndergaard's every move is probably going to get a lot of attention now...more than he probably wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Mets up 8-2 against the Braves in their spring opener. Gee went two innings and gave up two hits, two walks, and two runs. Lefty Jack Leathersich (talked about him before...basically a left-handed Ricky Vaughn) pitched a scoreless frame but walked a pair. Duda, Wright, Granderson, Cuddyer, and Murph not playing. Flores and Reynolds playing short, D'Arnaud and Monell (don't know him) catching (Monell hit a 3-run dinger), and Plawecki DHed. Cesar Puello is in this game too...you may remember him as the guy who was having a big 2013 in AA as a 22-year-old, then got suspended for 50 games due to his Biogenesis associations. Had a very ordinary year in AAA last season, and outside of his outlier AA year that may have been "enhanced", he hasn't done much at the plate above A ball. Great to have baseball back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 Something else about yesterday...I was wondering exactly how long it would take for the media to report concerns about Syndergaard's makeup. The "red flags" were there just waiting to be blown up: 1) His struggles at AAA Vegas (I'm sorry, but pitching in that environment can fvck with a LOT of people's heads). 2) The Mets thinking it was a good idea to have Syndergaard hang with Harvey as much as possible (Noah is still pretty green...does the whole "tag along with Harvey" thing really have to be an indictment on him, and made to sound like Noah is lacking something?) 3) The whole lunch incident, which unfortunately got witnessed by just enough bored reporters to become something of a big deal (Wright actually apologized for taking Syndergaard to task with media within earshot) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/bitterbill/david-wright-apologizes-noah-blog-entry-1.2136871 So at the very least, Syndergaard's every move is probably going to get a lot of attention now...more than he probably wanted. The most interesting thing about the lunch incident is that I never knew Wright could be that way behind the scenes. Sure he's captain but he always came across a soft spoken, timid...maybe even a bit meek. And yes Wright should have not done what he did with the media buzzing around, but overall it's probably not the worst thing to happen. I guess it is some sort of team building and they are emphasizing that a lax environment will not be accepted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.