Calling all Rangers and Mets fans and anyone else - we have a developing situation

QCar, anonymous:

As you pointed out, no one can really predict what these two teams' records will be in 3 or 4 years, so arguing about whether the Mets or the Rangers have a better chance of meeting your narrow definition of a 'winner' 3 or 4 years from now is pointless, just like what these teams did 3 or 4 years ago means absolutely nothing.

What matters is predicting how these teams will perform in 2007. What do we have to go on? Primarily last season's record, and next season's roster. Last year the Mets won 97 games. They've steadily improved every year over the last 3 years. The front office does what it needs to do to fill holes with quality players. A trend has been established.

Does this make the Mets 'winners'? Not really - that definition of 'winner' would be too broad, just like yours is too narrow. Does this make New York a place where Zito is more likely to be a 'winner' in your world? Of course. Just check the oddsmakers.

NYRomy, anonymous:

Why start at 1986, Blair? That's like asking Cowboy fans how many Superbowl titles the Boys have won since 1996. Perhaps you lack journalistic integrity. It would answer any and all questions about why you would stoop to the levels you have.

Let's, instead of asking loaded questions, look at team histories. What do you say we ask how many titles the Rangers have won since their move from Washington? Oh, wait, is that a big fat zero? How many World Series appearances have those mighty Rangers to show on their resume? Is that the same fat zero from before? Thought so.

Here's a piece of advice for you Blair. Before attacking a franchise and it's fanbase, before insulting their intelligence, perhaps you should do some research. Real journalists research their topics prior to submitting them to their editors. What you have done here is nothing more than the work of an angry blogger. If that's what you were going for, good for you sport. Because it is all you accomplised.

Vision, anonymous:

If Barry Zito came to me right here right now and asked which of the 2 teams he should sign with (if only!)...my response would be simple..the team that has the better chance of WINNING...now even you mr. blair agreed that as it stands right now the Mets are indeed that team with a better shot at winning it all.

as per your defintion..yes they are not winners yet because they didn't win the championship...but they have a better chance at being winners in 2007..finally attaining that level where they can be labeled as winners by everyone and anyones definition...so yes if I had to tell Zito to choose a team...take your chances with the most winningest team in baseball last season...the eventual winners...yes Barry...come to NY and be a winner

and if Barry would listen to me at all...i would also adamantly insist that he only take a 3 year deal worth somewhere around 10 million..heh

NYRomy, anonymous:

Yes, we're the brainless ones. Afterall it was the Mets people who failed to accurately state what round of the play-offs the Mets lost in, right Blair??

Furthermore, your failure to respond to my post in a professional manner, choosing to resort to childish insults instead, only shows the world who the truly brainless one is. Those who resort to insults in a debate are the ones who entered the debate unprepared.

Vision, anonymous:

"...that I agree with you that the Mets have a better chance of winning as things stand right now than the Texas Rangers."

meaning that if it came to a showdown between the Mets and the Rangers..the Mets would most likely come out to be the winners...and if i was going to join a team wouldn't it make sense to sign with the winners?

NYRomy, anonymous:

Blair wrote: "I don't know what's in Barry Zito's head. You are also forgetting that part of the equation. Apparently he wants to pitch in New York or he wouldn't be seriously talking with the Mets, so I would assume he thinks it is worth his time to pitch for the Mets, who have not won a World Series trophy since 1986 but who have come close since then, but nonetheless have not won anything in a generation."

Why this obsession with the 86 Mets? It appears as though it is your fallback argument whenever someone brings up a new point. Yes, the Mets have not won a World Series since 1986. You are correct. Good for you. You were able to search the internet and find that factoid. Now, please explain why that would have any bearing on Barry Zito in the year 2006.

crossbar85, anonymous:

Mr Lovern,

Like most of the Met fans posting here, I found your article "Screw you, New York Mets" in a link from Metsblog.com, a very popular site written by Matt Cerrone. At first, I decided that it was not worth my time and effort to pen a response, but after your repeated attacks on my fellow Met fans who have tried to reason with you, I decided that I must stand up in their defense.

You say that neither the Mets nor Rangers are winners because neither won the World Series. Initially, you refused to acknowledge that despite coming up short of winning the World Series, the Mets success last year may portend future success. Then when challenged on this point, you finally admitted that you do think the Mets are a better team than the Rangers are at this point. When further pressed on this issue, you suggested that the Met fans who are challenging you are all idiots. You said, "Why can't Mets people answer a simple question? Are they that brainless? How hard was that question?"

Well, I have a simple question for you. Where should Barry Zito sign?

Should Zito sign with a team that won 80 regular season games last year or a team that won 97?

Should Zito sign with a team that has won one playoff game in its history or a team that won six playoff games last year alone?

Most importantly, should Zito sign with a team whose fans are so passionate about baseball that they have flocked to a random Dallas area news site to defend their team despite repeatedly being attacked and called idiots by the staff of said news site, or should he sign with a team whose fans have not appeared once to voice their opinion in the argument?

Mr. Lovern, you have enraged and incensed a loyal fan base with ludicrous arguments and insults, but more than anything else, you have accidentally stumbled upon the secret of what makes it so great to be a professional athlete in New York, the true reason why Barry Zito should sign with the Mets over the Rangers. In New York, legions of rabid fans care whether you win or lose. A winner in New York is never forgotten. If you don't believe me, you can ask some Met greats like Tom Seaver, who remains a hugely popular figure despite, as you would say, not having won a World Series since 1969.

QCar, anonymous:

The last time the Mets won a World Series was 1986. That was one of the greatest post seasons in baseball history, and I remember it well. The feeling of watching your favorite team win a world championship is indescribable, especially for fans that suffered through losing seasons.

It must be painful when your team is on that short list of teams that has never won anything. Not even a pennant. As a matter of fact, the Rangers currently have the second longest pennant drought in the history of baseball, behind only the the Chicago Cubs.

So I will accede to your point that the Mets (and by extension, their fans) are not winners. They are simply not among the biggest losers. That honor is reserved for those lovable losers, the Cubs, and those not-so-lovable losers, the Rangers. -georgetom

crossbar85, anonymous:

Well, I'm glad that you proved that you cannot read and this argument is done for me. I just refuse to argue with an illiterate.

kconn616, anonymous:

Blair, you dont consider NYM a winner, but some people think the mets are a winner right now, for example Moises Alou, an all-star hitter, had this to say at his press conference: "The length of my contract doesn't really matter at this point in my career," Alou said. "I wanted to come here because this year -- I wanted to win this year."

If he wants to win this year, I suppose he would join a winner.

Buster Olney, Espn baseball columnist, recently wrote an article about the needs of all contending teams. CONTEDING teams. The Mets were discussed in this article, and none of the teams in competition with the Mets for Zito made it. If they are a true contender, I'd say they are a winner.

Now I know Blair is going to come back with "well they are not a HISTORICAL winner". Ok, only one team is- the Yanks, but who cares. Its all about right now and the future, the Mets obviously figure to a citadel for years to come. For a "non-winning" organization, they were pretty impressive taking an expansion team and winning the WS 7 years into their existence. Obviously Blair, your idea of a winner isn't shared with respected MLB followers like Olney, All-star hitters like Alou, and mostly every official/player in MLB. I'm sure they'd all recognize the Mets as a winning team and a team extremely well built for the future.

Now please respond and make little sense like the rest of your posts.

kconn616, anonymous:

And for the record Blair, I also find Zito overrated. He's a #2. But if Steve Trachsel can win 15 with the Mets and have a 5.00 ERA, Zito figures to win 20 and have a 3.25 era. That might be worth $16M when you look at Vicente Padilla or Adam Eaton's deal.

kconn616, anonymous:

No he wouldn't, he would just be a Cy Young candidate. I mean he already has one Cy in "the unmercifully dominant AL", why cant he win another in a great park, great offense, good defense, and great team?

kconn616, anonymous:

and Blair, you missed the post before that- didnt want to adress it?

kconn616, anonymous:

so in conclusion, the mets fans shouldnt be excited, because although they are a great team now and built for the future, they dont have the most world series rings and should no longer be excited.... nice article, much of thought was put into it, and even more defending it. your analysis on being a winner is the most asinine of all time, and im sure you wish the rangers had what the mets have, but all you can say is "screw yourself Mets". Thanks, but your team still sucks and according to your opinion, every team but the yankees do. in that case, lets not watch the season, we cant compare to the yankees

clmetsfan, anonymous:

This whole series of "articles" highlights my biggest problem with the state of internet journalism. Posting a piece (sorry, Blair, I had to do it) requires no qualifications or accountability, so people can say whatever the hell they want. And before long, it degenerates into a series of snippy and antagonistic comments by people who have WAY too much time on their hands.

Yes, Blair, most of the comments in yesterday's article were ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous for you to come back by insulting everyone's intelligence when you instigated them to begin with your remarks, even if they were tongue in cheek.

The fact is that if you had said things like this to people's faces, your own would have been rearranged. Now, I'm certainly not advocating that, because violence in response to provocation about a sports team is about as absurd a reason for it that there is.

But the anonymity provided by the internet has led things to the other end of the spectrum, and that's not a good thing either. You've been sitting there grinning to yourself while you infuriate dozens of people, and there's no repurcussion whatsoever. You've deliberately antagonized people you will never see, safe behind your keyboard. It's the equivalent of throwing a drink in someone's face and then running away. If that makes you feel good about yourself, then fine. But I suggest you listen to your wife and stop egging these people on just for the hell of it.

kconn616, anonymous:

ofcourse that makes him feel good about himself, he writes for the pegasus news man, having more than 10 people read his article makes his life complete.

Imametspeopletoo, anonymous:

Oh I get it now, it's supposed to be irreverent - well, at least when someone presents you with a cogent argument you're unable to refute. Plus, it's not like you have all day to argue those points, you have a life to lead and grass to cut unlike the rest of us (hence the 40+ posts you've made over the past two days, not counting the two 11 minute articles, the google image searches, etc. etc.)...

Congratulations on this blip(otherwise known as your 15 minutes of fame)carved out of your meaningless journalistic career (as opposed to the 'dull' part when you were actually compensated by a reptuable media outlet - allegedly).

PS - To Matt Cerrone - I want my fifteeen minutes back!

Chris0718, anonymous:

Blair, I want to applaud you.

The people who make your life worth living, opinions worth writing - us, the readers of your blog and such - you harash and try to bash down with mean and untrue statements. I would like to point out that you come off as a bit of a jerk in your writing, and maybe you should tone it down. Get your facts straight. <<< Once you learn to do this, then maybe you'll have a chance at writing for a real newspaper, like a "LA Times" or "NY Times".

If you react as you have, then I expect to be harassed and have meaningless slurs thrown in my directions.

PS: If Zito signs with the Mets, his career flurishes and he goes on to the HOF. If he signs with the Rangers, he gets lit up every fifth night and goes no where.

You might ask "how can you predict that?" So I say in response, "My opinion is just as qualified as yours - if you can trash talk my team and make your ridiculous claims, I have the right to state mine."

I expect some rebuttal, and again, if it is like anyone of your previous posts, it will be uneducated. That I can look forward to. Till then.

Vision, anonymous:

a Texas Ranger everyone can look up to:

http://images.hallmarkchannel.com/Mic...

fonzy1324, anonymous:

This is a silly argument because it's all semantics. "Winner" can be defined many different ways. Blair chose one way to define it and by her definition, the Mets are indeed not a winner.

But wasn't the whole premise of the original article that it's silly for Mets fans to think the Mets are the best fit for Zito? But then Blair went on to admit as much?

One_Shot_Deal, anonymous:

Why did you write this in the first place?

Dmss10, anonymous:

Didn't realize Gary Cohen was the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of this newspaper.

Of course, all Met Fans know what Mr. Cohen's day job is....

Sincerely,

Mezz Sec 14, Row B

bobronkin17000, anonymous:

No wonder you write for a 2nd rate "newspaper" in a 2nd rate market. You are a hack, and you have no idea what you're talking about. The Mets are winners because they can potentially compete every year. The Rangers are losers because they sign clowns like Vicente Padilla and consistently lose 85 games. You might want to stop being so ignorant before you decide to write some baseless article because of your pathetic unnecessary Texas pride.

metgeek, anonymous:

WOW! I cannot believe what I am reading! The Mets vs the Texas Rangers? Poking fun at a team mascot? Have we no shame? I cannot believe that I actually registered to post this comment.

First of all Mr Lovern, why all of the hatred toward the New York Mets? The Mets are not the Rangers rivals. You took offense to a writers "Opinion" that Barry Zito would sign with the Mets because they are "Winners", and the Rangers are not. Did Omar Minaya make those comments? Did Willie Randolph? Did Fred Wilpon? Did ANYBODY in the Mets organization make those comments? So why write an article titled "Screw You Mets"?

Now your definition of a "Winner" is pretty direct. I guess the only team that should be called a "Winner" are the Cardnails since they are the current World Series champs. The Yankees? They have not been "Winners" for over 6 years now. (In your opinion).

So now after writing an article because a writer for a NJ paper pissed you off, you now write another article because some Mets fans pissed you off. What in the world would you do if nobody pissed you off? I guess your contributions to The Pegasus News would have been limited.

Now as far as Zito is concerned, who knows what he is going to do. All we do know is that he wants to pitch in a "Pitchers" park. He wants out of the AL (So there will be no DH). He is an aspiring musician. Now all those things aside we also kow that $$$ talks, and BS walks. Most likely whoever offers Zito the most green will win his services...even if it is the Tallahasse Ward Hogs, and they too have NEVER won a championship.

Now judging by your writing it appears you suffer from some kind of inferiority complex. Don't feel so bad. Many people do. All is not lost. Texas has some good players on their team. Who knows if they do outbid the Mets for Zito's services you can write another article poking fun at the Mets and their fans. If he signs with the Mets you can write another scalding article about your new found hatred for a NL team that is insignifigant to both you, and your Texas Rangers. I guess after the Zito sweepstakes are over you will just have read the papers and wait until the writer of another team pisses you off. Take heart Blair. The Cowboys beat up on the Giants. I guess Texas has some reason to cheer after all. Be well.

sph, anonymous:

"that gay looking Mr. Met" - So you're homophobic Blair? Your name is Blair and you're homophobic, that is awesome.

Do you really consider yourself a journalist? I hope this is just a hobby for you, a way to waste some time, like it is for all the people commenting.

metdenn, anonymous:

I didn't read the article, but I do have this to say.

You can't let things go Blair,and you really lack taste or class. While I won't attribute your comments to your whole state, much like you and your fellow staffers continue to do, I do see where this "off-beat" local blog is headed, and I'm glad I won't need to read it ever again. I'm sure there is a logical reason that you no longer work for a publication like Baseball America, but so far it looks like a abrasive, nasty personality, a lack of an ability to form cogent, structured arguments that are based on fact than pure conjecture, and an inability to fact check. Go ahead, bring up 1986, or bring up the fact that there is only one winner in your eyes (apparently an 83 win team kicking around Detroit PROVES the AL is inferior to the NL, who at least took them to 7 games).

All in all, this is just a hole in the wall blog about an area of the country that apparently still harbors ill feelings to those who are different (gay Mr. Met among other comments) and it's sad if you believe in 2 weeks let alone 2 days anyone outside your purposefully limited reader base remembers you. Enjoy this notoriety, and continue to act high and mighty like being "big internet fish in the local pond" entitles you to be bigoted in your opinions. Now go ahead, tear this off topic or give me one word responses, that IS what you are good at.

HitTheWeightsZeile, anonymous:

Heres the problem with your idiotic statement about being classified a "winner". The Red Sox, Marlins, & White Sox all won the world series and failed to either make the playoffs or advance past the 1st round the following year. So by your logic during the off season they were the only team called a "winner". But, again by your flawed theory they followed up gaining "winner" status by being a "loser". So basically unless you can predict exactly who will win the world series no one is essentially a winner and therefore all free agents should just put every teams name on a dart board and blindly pick a a suitor. Since Scott Boras would never allow that Zito must chose the team he feels has the best chance at winning. So he must take into account, past records, and potential success since the Mets play in a pitcher friendly park, finished tied for the best record in the league, and have 2 of the best players in the league under the age of 25, Id say theyre a better fit than a bottom feeder who plays in a park with fences the average male could piss over from home plate.
As far as stooping to calling Mr. Met gay thats pretty immature so Im not even going to get into that. I think you may be a little jealous though, its not my fault you dont have a mascot (or at least one that I could name/has been in ESPN commercials). I have an idea though, hire Chuck Norris to pose as Walker Texas Ranger and anytime something bad happens he'll round house kick a member of the other team or an umpire depending on what the situation calls for. I think that would be a real winner.

P.S: how does it feel to know that you are still paying more for Arod than we are for David Wright. Dont Mess With Texas.