Some Things I Read Today

First and foremost, and not necessarily reading material, but my friend sent me this via the Twitter: Deadspin’s video of David Freese’s home run with the BBC Radio call over it. It sounds like soccer this way, right? If you close your eyes? It sounds like the World Cup.

Moving along:

Yes, I will be pissed, disappointed and emotionally fired up if the Mets do not re-sign Reyes. The thing is, intellectually, I know it is mostly not wise to sign anyone to a six- or seven-year, $120 million contract. And this is the conflict: What is best for the team going forward? What gets them to a World Series sooner than later? But, at the same time, what is most fun? What makes watching Mets baseball most exciting, while seeing them build toward a winner? They are not always the same thing. I think Sandy Alderson is smart. I think he’s correct in that to build a winner (just like most every other organization has done before their big run), you need to strip down, spend less on the 25-man roster and invest that money in to the organization and farm, deal with weaker attendance (which means less revenue), but develop young talent, then start winning, then sell tickets, then build revenue and then spend on free agents and on keeping your best, young talent so to create a consistent, sustainable winning situation. We are in Phase One of that, basically, and I need to trust that these guys know what they’re doing. And so, if that means letting some other win-now team lock in to Jose for six or seven years, though it will make me emotionally distraught for a few days (maybe even a few years), if the Mets can win a World Series at some point soon, than it will have all been worth it. If not, blame Sandy.

– Matt Cerrone, “A lot of words on Blame, Winning and Jose Reyes”

In all honesty, this stuff is why I’ve been reading MetsBlog everyday for the past five years or so. Now, it is my parent/sister site, so maybe take what I say with a grain of salt, but . . . I’ve always enjoyed Matt’s opinions for two reasons: He’s honest and he acknowledges that the world is full of shades of gray. I think those two qualities, more than anything, make someone an interesting writer or blogger. I don’t agree with all his Mets opinions, but I also never think he’s BS-ing me as a reader. I think that’s why I click over there multiple times a day, everyday.

Can the players stop the owners from getting a deal that is much worse for them than the previous Collective Bargaining Agreement? No. What the players are willing to agree to is already materially worse than before. The only question that remains is how bad it will get.

Does the players’ line in the sand over 2.5 percent of BRI make economic sense? No, not if they miss many games to achieve it.

Is the owners’ offer fair? Not really.

Should the players take it? Yes.

– Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier,”Two Economists Explain the NBA Lockout

Whenever a piece has two authors, I like to imagine they’re squeezed into the same computer chair, one typing with the left hand and the other typing with the right hand.

Seriously though, I’m depressed about the NBA lockout. I got really into the Knicks in 2008-09 and 2009-10 for some reason — I’m drawn to losing teams like bugs are drawn to blue death lights — and then last season was a ton of fun. There was a possibility some of the winter baseball down-time around here might be filled up with the occasional Knicks post. But the lockout is throwing a wrench into everyone’s plans, I guess.

Did I say I found the Octopus article from yesterday via Give Me Something to Read? If I didn’t, I should have. Add it to your RSS reader.


Filed under Words

3 responses to “Some Things I Read Today

  1. I love the BBC call! I think if I had been listening to that, instead of Buck & McCarver during the Series, I would’ve paid more attention to the small details of the game and less to stalking opportunities to criticize Buck & McCarver.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, and maybe I’m merely justifying my own position, but I think becoming a fan of a sports team when that team is “a loser” and then having that team eventually win (and then having it eventually not win, a lot) forms a deeper bond between the fan and the team than simply being born in, say, 1988 and becoming a Yankees fan at age 7.

    • Patrick Flood

      Think of how many good, thoughtful Mets blogs there are out there. I don’t know other teams’ blog networks as well as I know the Mets, but how many great Yankees blogs are out there? Or Red Sox? There are certainly a few of both, but my impression is that there aren’t that many. On the other hand, the Dodgers’ blog network is great; there are some really great people writing about the Pirates.

      It seems that if you take a passionate fanbase and give them a crummy team, thoughtful blogs emerge. My guess is that you don’t need to rationalize winning — it’s also not nearly as interesting as losing. Losing forces fans and bloggers to answer all these tough questions. So I agree with you: I think becoming a fan of a losing team might be a more rewarding experience than only experiencing victory.

  2. I feel obliged here.

    The BBC call was 20 times better than FOX, where Buck just basically checked his calendar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s