Comments by otterulz
Page 1 of 1
Posted on December 15, 2006 at 2:41 p.m.
Well Mets/Rangers is hardly the Milan Derby. Hmm....maybe it will be. Do we play each other in Interleague play next season?
Posted on December 15, 2006 at 11:37 a.m.
"I'm not saying the Mets are a bad team... heck, with a few lucky breaks here and there, they might even be a .500 team in the AL. They've got some talent, for sure... enough, probably, to take an AL team to five or even six games before losing the series. And really, that would be a tremendous victory for Mets fans everywhere."
I like how you're an expert on this subject, yet you can't even come with logical arguments as to why or back anything up.
I don't know, maybe you like reading New Yorkers come in here and get all wound up over a poorly written, illogical piece. Maybe that's your thing. Or maybe you just don't know baseball. Who knows?!?!?! Anyway, thank you for this though, because after reading the quality of the material on here, it's nice to know that I can become a "journalist" in Texas. See, in New York, you actually have to know what you're talking about to become one, so that's a tougher road I don't feel like going down.
Thank you, Texas!
Posted on December 15, 2006 at 11:15 a.m.
Ok, and the Cardinals beat the Tigers who won how many games in the oh so superior American League? 97 wins. 97. What happened there? I like how you try to make an argument about how weak the NL is, yet conveniently leave out the fact that an NL team with 83 wins happened to win the World Series. Geez, this isn't even an argument anymore.
Posted on December 15, 2006 at 10:58 a.m.
"This whole article was enlightening to me. I didn't even know there was a second baseball team in New York."
This is what people resort to when they have no argument. Way to go, Chief!
Posted on December 15, 2006 at 10:51 a.m.
Ok, first you screwed up about how far they got in the playoffs. Whatever. But the basis of your argument is pretty weak. If your definition of a "winner" is a team that wins the World Series, which I'm assuming you mean since you keep bringing up the fact that they haven't won since '86, then why are you calling the Braves champions, "(hello Atlanta Braves 1991-2005?)"? The Braves won one, count 'em, ONE World Series in that span back in 1995. The rest were all Division crowns. Now if I recall, I believe the new Division champs are the New York Mets. Does that make them winners now in your book or did you just try and get by with that Braves argument?
And yeah, Zito will probably get overpaid, but how do you complain about a guy who is about to get more money than he's worth when you signed A-Rod to a quarter of a billion dollar deal?
Page 1 of 1
Posted on December 16, 2006 at 11:37 a.m.
"But, I'm wondering why the index seems to be at a low right now. From the commentary here I'd say that fan confidence is much higher than the graph would indicate."
It's kinda like how Giants fans defend Barry Bonds, even if they know deep down inside he used steroids. We as Mets fans can criticize our team, but once an outsider does, it gets personal. Irrational? Maybe a little.
I'm guessing some people are anxious on the Zito signing and waiting for Omar to make something happen, thus the lower confidence rating. But of course when someone puts up a piece headlined, "Screw you, New York Mets", we'll come here and defend them till the death. Or until we get bored. Whichever.
On Screw you, New York Mets