Jump to content

New York Mets 2017-18 offseason thread


NJDevs4978
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course.  Seriously, fvck the Mets, fvck the Wilpons, and fvck Sandy.

Kudos to the Brewers...they're actually TRYING.

The other thing that sucks about this is that the Mets can say "utility role" all they want with Reyes...you just know that if Rosario is hitting under .200 through his first 10 games, Reyes will get yet another shot at everyday playing time. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Not specifically Mets related, but RIP Chief Wahoo.  The Indians are ceasing on-field use of their logo starting in 2019.  :( 

The world we live in is too PC.

And the funny thing is, it’s American Indians who seem to care the least about that stuff.  Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Not specifically Mets related, but RIP Chief Wahoo.  The Indians are ceasing on-field use of their logo starting in 2019.  :( 

The world we live in is too PC.

This one is tricky...as someone who isn't Native American (not much, anyway) and isn't easily offended, I'm probably not the best one to judge this.  It's really not the end of the world if Chief Wahoo goes away...he's been around for over 70 years.  It's obviously a much different world we live in 2018 from 1947 (some will say it's better and some worse, but I can pick apart ANY era and find bad things about it, contrary to what many oldsters would have you believe)...back then you could listen to Amos and Andy on the radio, and an A&A TV show wasn't that far away.  I was pretty indifferent to Wahoo myself...I don't think the design was ever created to actively offend anyone.

That being said, what I HATE about these sorts of issues is that people seem to jump on sensitivity bandwagons, and a lot of the reason people do that is that they want to show the world how enlightened and "with it" they all are...it often seems like it's much more about THAT than it is about genuinely feeling offended and outraged.  Like I said, I'm not a full-blood Native American (I have trace amounts of Native American heritage), so I really don't want to tell offended Native Americans that they're wrong for feeling the way that they do...and apparently, a number of them have had issues with the whole Chief Wahoo thing for decades...but like Daniel just alluded to, was it really all that many Native Americans that were bothered by it? 

I think there's plenty of SJWs who hopped aboard this simply for the sake of hopping aboard, as they often do.  So for them, now it's on to the next thing I guess.  I expect that the Redskins nickname will be attacked harder now than ever. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

This one is tricky...as someone who isn't Native American (not much, anyway) and isn't easily offended, I'm probably not the best one to judge this.  It's really not the end of the world if Chief Wahoo goes away...he's been around for over 70 years.  It's obviously a much different world we live in 2018 from 1947 (some will say it's better and some worse, but I can pick apart ANY era and find bad things about it, contrary to what many oldsters would have you believe)...back then you could listen to Amos and Andy on the radio, and an A&A TV show wasn't that far away.  I was pretty indifferent to Wahoo myself...I don't think the design was ever created to actively offend anyone.

That being said, what I HATE about these sorts of issues is that people seem to jump on sensitivity bandwagons, and a lot of the reason people do that is that they want to show the world how enlightened and "with it" they all are...it often seems like it's much more about THAT than it is about genuinely feeling offended and outraged.  Like I said, I'm not a full-blood Native American (I have trace amounts of Native American heritage), so I really don't want to tell offended Native Americans that they're wrong for feeling the way that they do...and apparently, a number of them have had issues with the whole Chief Wahoo thing for decades...but like Daniel just alluded to, was it really all that many Native Americans that were bothered by it? 

I think there's plenty of SJWs who hopped aboard this simply for the sake of hopping aboard, as they often do.  So for them, now it's on to the next thing I guess.  I expect that the Redskins nickname will be attacked harder now than ever. 

I’ve actually seen polls that show that American Indians just don’t care about the Indian names for sports teams.  

Beyond people on twitter who have opinions one way or the other about it, the people who make the most noise about Indian names and things like that are a class of rent seekers that have a financial interest in it.  For instance, they graduate with some useless degree in “[fill in the blank] studies” and go out looking for organizations to shake down.  So it might be a baseball team with an “offensive” name or logo.  They probably won’t get the team to make a change, but they can get some do nothing job as a “sensitivity trainer” or some such nonsense.  A “diversity admninstrator” at most universities pays at least $250k a year, to do pretty much nothing, as those administrators don’t promote diversity in any way that actually matters and they do nothing to help under represented minority students.  The bigger corporations also have administrators like that too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I don't understand is, they're not changing their name (Indian, as far as I know, isn't offensive to people), so why change just the logo, when all it does is feature someone smiling?  It's not like it's a depiction of an Indian being scalped.  I understand the face is starkly red, but...in all honesty, that's kind of the complexion of a lot of Native Americans...is it not?  The team name Redskins, while also not offensive to me, is a little different because with that you're actually going out and specifically saying the people are just that - red-skinned.  And I guess you could make the argument that Cleveland's logo is doing the same thing but in an illustrative way instead of verbally, but I still think it's pretty harmless.  

Also, Dan Snyder did already come out and say that he still has no plans to change his team's name.   As a Giants fan I dislike him and his team, and laugh at how he runs them, but on this particular issue... good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conspiracy theory 2 cents is that this was done strictly for the All Star game in 2019. They are not getting the game without removing the logo...so they backed down, but they'll still wear the logo this year, and they'll still sell it at select locations even in 2019 as official Indians merchandise. There's really nothing stopping them from phasing Wahoo back in in 2020 once they reap the ASG financial windfall. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

The thing I don't understand is, they're not changing their name (Indian, as far as I know, isn't offensive to people), so why change just the logo, when all it does is feature someone smiling?  It's not like it's a depiction of an Indian being scalped.  I understand the face is starkly red, but...in all honesty, that's kind of the complexion of a lot of Native Americans...is it not?  The team name Redskins, while also not offensive to me, is a little different because with that you're actually going out and specifically saying the people are just that - red-skinned.  And I guess you could make the argument that Cleveland's logo is doing the same thing but in an illustrative way instead of verbally, but I still think it's pretty harmless.  

Also, Dan Snyder did already come out and say that he still has no plans to change his team's name.   As a Giants fan I dislike him and his team, and laugh at how he runs them, but on this particular issue... good for him.

Technically, the Wahoo depiction is not of "Indians"...that's what Columbus called Native Americans when he thought he was in India.  But suffice it to say that Cleveland Native Americans doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. 

I went to Montclair State College, where our teams were the Indians...somehow we even had the Chief Wahoo logo, kind of as a secondary logo IIRC (this was back in the late 80s).  When I came back to school in 1989 (my second full year), both the logo and the nickname had been dumped (apparently due to some protests and people being offended), and from that point on we were the Montclair Red Hawks.  And of course the Fighting Sioux are now the Fighting Hawks (guess Hawks is the way to go post-Native American nicknames).    

Yeah, Snyder did say that, but the SJWs probably feel like they just earned a victory with Cleveland, so now they'll want to strike while the iron's hot.  The question is how many more teams do they want to go after?  Not like the Redskins are the only team still using Native American references as a nickname.  Braves are still tomahawk-choppin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

That reminds me of a George Carlin line to the effect of, I don’t understand how there can be a team called The Fighting Irish.  Why not have a team called The Bargaining Jews?  While George Carlin was joking, SJWs have almost this autistic quality where they can’t tell why normal people don’t consider Fighting Irish and Bargaining Jews to be the same thing.

Re your earlier post, Columbus almost certainly knew that he was not in India, which was not even called that by a lot of Europeans at the time, although he might have thought that he was on an undiscovered part of Asia.   He probably called them “Indios” to mean God’s People.  At the time, most people used the term Hindustan to refer to what we call India today.

Edited by Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I’d expect from the government more than my sports team:

Yeah go ahead tout how active you are when like 80% of free agents are still unsigned and all you’ve done is a bunch of rearranging of lamps and bringing back the same deck chairs. It’s just like when Sandy said earlier this offseason that ‘we have had the largest contract outlay (Ces) in the last two years’. No you had the largest last offseason! Let’s see what Hosmer, JD and Darvish go for first this offseason. The political bs is annoying me almost as much as the predicted inactivity.

Edited by NJDevs4978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NJDevs4978 said:

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I’d expect from the government more than my sports team:

Yeah go ahead tout how active you are when like 80% of free agents are still unsigned and all you’ve done is a bunch of rearranging of lamps and bringing back the same deck chairs. It’s just like when Sandy said earlier this offseason that ‘we have had the largest contract outlay (Ces) in the last two years’. No you had the largest last offseason! Let’s see what Hosmer, JD and Darvish go for first this offseason. The political bs is annoying me almost as much as the predicted inactivity.

This is EXACTLY why there's such disconnect between the Mets and their fans...and why the fans don't trust the Wilpons and Sandy one bit.  And Sandy is always good for some condescension from time to time.  Sandy, spin it all you want, but...you're not a good GM.  You haven't done a good job here.  Unlike some GMs, you did inherit some solid talent.  Your drafts have largely been pretty nonproductive.  You've shown absolutely zero in the creativity department, and accountability continues to be 100% nonexistent under your watch.  There isn't a Met fan alive who didn't predict that this offseason would've gone EXACTLY the way it's gone, given your penchant for being lazy, meek, and passive when we really need so much more.  But go ahead Sandy, keep patting yourself on the back for the World Series appearance in 2015 that you really didn't have THAT much to do with.  Trust me, we ALL remember that your first choice was Carlos Gomez that year.  ALL of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want no part of Reyes AGAIN in 2018. But here he is, grinning and dancing and hitting .190. Yea he can play some positions and can still run but I just want to cut that last damn thread to those old loser teams. Wright I already consider done and Omar isn't a player.

Just please have a quick hook with him in 2018. I don't want to see him on Independence Day if he's below the Mendoza line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about Sandy, the more I sort of get that he just wasn't cut out for this in this market. He's an intelligent guy, and in other places where they don't crucify you (Oakland, SD) the laid back fans and non piranha like media just ate up and adored his wit and charm and were in awe of his Harvard credentials. And he was younger and more in tune, in touch with the game back then.

A lot of that 2015 team was Omars men and just dumb luck (which this team rarely gets) like with the Gomez/Ces thing. We won't be repeating anything like that soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lame.  Sandy apparently likes one kind of hitter.  Fitting end to an uninspired uncreative offseason.  Mets are never going anywhere as long as POS Sandy is still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least Frazier can stay on the field. And it is a meh move but we had to fill the position one way or another. Citi is not quite the HR graveyard it used to be but Frazier is a guy that's exclusively played in bandbox home stadiums. White Sox, Reds, Yankees. I mean he hit a post season HR to right field where he basically threw his bat at the ball looking like he was trying to just get a piece and it went over the wall. That's not happening here in any direction

Also I'm preparing myself for the "Wright stunned by Frazier signing" article. This move (I hope) was preceded by David Wright informing the organization that he is in fact retiring and plans to announce on this date. 

Edited by '7'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh DW wouldn't have even the whiff of a negative comment or thought on the Frazier signing, he's too measured for that.  Heck if a miracle comeback occured (which it won't) and they really really wanted to play David, they'd just bump him or Frazier over to 1B, Gonzalez is theoretically replaceable.  But at this point I think this spring's the last roundup for David either way.

And I agree with both of you, I'm not against the move per se, Frazier has his pluses (one being we're not starting Jose Reyes at least) but like CR said it is more of the same from Sandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, '7' said:

Well at least Frazier can stay on the field. And it is a meh move but we had to fill the position one way or another. Citi is not quite the HR graveyard it used to be but Frazier is a guy that's exclusively played in bandbox home stadiums. White Sox, Reds, Yankees. I mean he hit a post season HR to right field where he basically threw his bat at the ball looking like he was trying to just get a piece and it went over the wall. That's not happening here in any direction

Also I'm preparing myself for the "Wright stunned by Frazier signing" article. This move (I hope) was preceded by David Wright informing the organization that he is in fact retiring and plans to announce on this date. 

To be fair Frazier's career splits are remarkably similar home/road so he isn't really a creature of his ballparks

Home - .245/.320/.459 (1650 AB's)

Road - ..245/.321/.458 (1695 AB's)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like '7' pointed out, at least he can play some defense. 

Just hate that it's going to be the same ol same ol for this offense...occasional home run barrages, and way too much reliance on home runs in general (but not enough hits and Ks galore).  Iffy defense in the OF corners, and at least two salami bats in Lagares and Rosario (maybe Rosario improves, but I can't expect that much out of his bat in his first full MLB season).  Who knows what the catching tandem of d'Arnaud and Plaw will give you.  Just doesn't feel like much was done to really improve this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even look at the #'s and just assumed he raked at home and was meh away. ha

The situational hitting in this team is going to absolutely drive us nuts. The little things that win you games they're not going to be able to do. Moving runners over, sac flies. Not swinging at 3-1 junk 2 feet off the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs.

Some games they will mash. Other games the will get 2 hits and strikeout 76 times.

I just wish we could allocate these funds a different way (ahem, bullpen) wouldn't it be nice if we, like other teams, could actually draft and cultivate decent position players that can come up and produce for pennies when they're young instead of having to sign 31 year old Todd Frazier? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, '7' said:

I didn't even look at the #'s and just assumed he raked at home and was meh away. ha

The situational hitting in this team is going to absolutely drive us nuts. The little things that win you games they're not going to be able to do. Moving runners over, sac flies. Not swinging at 3-1 junk 2 feet off the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs.

Some games they will mash. Other games the will get 2 hits and strikeout 76 times.

I just wish we could allocate these funds a different way (ahem, bullpen) wouldn't it be nice if we, like other teams, could actually draft and cultivate decent position players that can come up and produce for pennies when they're young instead of having to sign 31 year old Todd Frazier? 

Man I couldn't agree with you more.  And since this team won't be very good at getting on base, that means lots of solo HRs.  I can't figure out why Sandy continues to go with this "HRs at the expense of everything else" model...the friggin' home ballpark isn't even conducive to it, and never has been.  I'm actually stunned how he went so all-in on "same ol same ol".  Guess we'll just have to enjoy the occasional 5 HR, 9 runs scored game when they happen.   

As for the last sentence...now we're seeing that Sandy's largely unproductive drafts are forcing the Mets to dip into FA...only they don't want to spend much, so they're looking for bargains...and we know how Sandy's track record has been in trying to find genuine bargains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I thought Frazier would be a good add on a deal like this to most teams (EDIT) and as a Yankee he was a net positive in the clubhouse, and there's value to that culture as well.  It's not an exact fit to need for the Mets (he's another Three True Outcome guy on a team that seems full of them), but they had a hole at 3B and he'll hold up respectably there.  I would think he also pushes Reyes to the bench or to the waiver wire, but I've been wrong on that before.

Edited by Hi, I'm VALUE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pushed for Frazier earlier in the offseason so I'm pretty satisfied with this signing, especially at the ridiculously-discounted price. He's not going to turn this team into a legit contender himself, but he does make the team better and knocks Jose Reyes down the infield pecking order, which can only be a good thing. 

We definitely need to add a starter, so I'm glad that seems to be getting some kind of attention. Will they afford Lance Lynn or Alex Cobb? I don't know. I would normally say no but with this free agent market in such a whacked out mode, you never know. If they settle for dirt cheap, Jamie Garcia probably makes the most sense and I wouldn't hate it.

Not sure if I've been here for the Gonzalez signing but total YUCK. I'm not a Smith fan but 1000 out of 1000 I'll roll with him over a washed up guy like Gonzalez who was also a clubhouse nuisance with the Dodgers last year. I find it laughable the Gonzalez-mentoring-Smith columns laughable... this is the same guy who cried over losing his job to Cody Bellinger last summer. He's here to play as a starter and nothing else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Smith...there was a nice article in the NYP about how much weight he's lost this offseason...about 30 pounds...down to 224, and not only much slimmer, but apparently much more flexible.  He came into camp last year at about 236 (and looking trimmer than previously) before blowing back up into the mid-250s again.  Smith admitted that he can't let a repeat of last season happen, and has to keep the weight off for good this time.  Will be interesting to see if he can do it. 

At least Frazier can play defense, but man am I just tired of that kind of hitter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.