|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
metsfan718
  
| #1 posted June 20, 2009 at 12:01pm (EST)
edited November 5, 2009 at 12:04am (EST) |
This topic had many older posts which were moved here:
http://gametz.com/forum/General/topic/337245.html
|
DirtyMarco
| | #2 posted June 20, 2009 at 12:01pm (EST) |
and to bad the mets are just going to end up choking in the end like always.
 |
sav2880
 
| | #3 posted June 20, 2009 at 12:18pm (EST) |
Gonna be at the Reds-White Sox game tonight. Go Cincy!
Find friends to play against online. @ Multiplayer Matchmaking Forum
RENTAL THREAD |
Feeb
| | #4 posted June 20, 2009 at 1:48pm (EST) |
metsfan718 wrote:
> LiL_Ramsey wrote:
>> Nate McLouth since joining the Braves (13 games):
>> .271 BA, 12 runs, 3 HR, 8 RBI's, 2 SB. I couldn't find any site
> with
>> just his stats for the Braves (though I didn't really look that
> hard),
>> so I couldn't really figure out his OBP and SLG%.
>>
>> Not a bad start, though we're only 5-8 in that span unfortunately.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah too bad the rest of the team sucks.
Coming from a mets fan? wow. |
DirtyMarco
| | #5 posted June 20, 2009 at 2:15pm (EST) |
yeah. See my response to his butt-hole remark Feeb.
|
Feeb
| | #6 posted June 20, 2009 at 2:57pm (EST) |
Seeing as how the Braves are 2 1/2 games back from the Mets and healthy... probably should have waited 3 months before saying that... |
DirtyMarco
| | #7 posted June 20, 2009 at 3:29pm (EST) |
meh. Everyone knows that the Mets are gonna choke. New season same results.
|
refloc
| | #8 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:05pm (EST) |
Two seasons account for "always" huh? |
DirtyMarco
| | #9 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:06pm (EST) |
I never said always.
|
DirtyMarco
| | #10 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:06pm (EST) |
Same Team. Same results???
|
refloc
| | #11 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:07pm (EST) |
DirtyMarco wrote:
> and to bad the mets are just going to end up choking in the end like
> always.
>
|
Feeb
| | #12 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:21pm (EST) |
refloc wrote:
> Two seasons account for "always" huh?
Ummm.. 2 NL east titles, one National League pennant and one WS title in the last 23 years... always is kinda more accurate. |
refloc
| #13 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:25pm (EST)
edited June 20, 2009 at 4:26pm (EST) |
He was referring to the Mets always choking in the end |
Feeb
| | #14 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:29pm (EST) |
The end is all that matters, right? |
refloc
| | #15 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:32pm (EST) |
No, not always. I'd rather be out of the playoffs by 8 games than have a sizeable lead and blow it the last day of the season.
But hey, that's just me |
Feeb
| | #16 posted June 20, 2009 at 4:45pm (EST) |
Well, there's always the chance that jesus comes and proclaims you victors after the 162nd game... play til the whistle! |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #17 posted June 20, 2009 at 5:45pm (EST) |
Championships since 1962
Mets = 2
Braves = 1 |
Feeb
| | #18 posted June 20, 2009 at 6:12pm (EST) |
Explain why the Braves got brought into this? I think the conversation was about how the Mets = fail... And WS championships, yes, but championships period? ...lol... Braves win that one. |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #19 posted June 20, 2009 at 6:36pm (EST) |
What does "championships period" mean? You mean you guys can get the hot girl and rarely get laid? The Braves are like the fat kid that hangs out with the cheerleaders. |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #20 posted June 20, 2009 at 6:37pm (EST) |
Feeb wrote:
> Explain why the Braves got brought into this?
Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. |
Feeb
| | #21 posted June 20, 2009 at 6:43pm (EST) |
Don't get me wrong on the Braves... they suck... I just don't think The Mets don't suck....lol |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #22 posted June 20, 2009 at 6:44pm (EST) |
Neither do I  We've been called "the lovable losers" for years and there's a reason for that. |
metsfan718
| | #23 posted June 20, 2009 at 7:02pm (EST) |
refloc wrote:
> No, not always. I'd rather be out of the playoffs by 8 games than
> have a sizeable lead and blow it the last day of the season.
>
> But hey, that's just me
I disagree. It's so exiting when it comes down to the last day. I know Mets fans were upset months after the collapse but that's what baseball is all about. There are upssets . It's really boring when your teams is out early. |
kess
| | #24 posted June 20, 2009 at 7:09pm (EST) |
AlphakirA wrote:
> Neither do I We've been called "the lovable losers" for years
> and there's a reason for that.
The Mets are far from lovable. |
refloc
| | #25 posted June 20, 2009 at 8:43pm (EST) |
kess wrote:
> AlphakirA wrote:
>> Neither do I We've been called "the lovable losers" for years
>> and there's a reason for that.
>
> The Mets are far from lovable.
Just like you.
Oh, I just went there. |
Feeb
| | #26 posted June 20, 2009 at 8:50pm (EST) |
Yeah kess, i don't think I love you. |
kess
| | #27 posted June 20, 2009 at 9:00pm (EST) |
 |
Feeb
| | #28 posted June 20, 2009 at 9:48pm (EST) |
I could learn to. |
LiL_Ramsey
| #29 posted June 20, 2009 at 10:23pm (EST)
edited June 20, 2009 at 10:23pm (EST) |
Umm, when did the Mets become the "lovable losers"? The Cubs have had that nickname since the 70's, shortly after the Mets were created...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lovable+loser...
Rock Band forum |
metsfan718
| | #30 posted June 21, 2009 at 3:21am (EST) |
I agree that the Mets are lovable but only because they almost make it the playoffs on the last day for the past two years . If they almost make it for a third year by 1or two games I will not consider them the lovable Mets. Three strikes and your out. |
DirtyMarco
| | #31 posted June 21, 2009 at 3:34am (EST) |
refloc wrote:
> DirtyMarco wrote:
>> and to bad the mets are just going to end up choking in the end
> like
>> always.
>>
>
My apologies good sir. The mets USUALLY end up choking in the end.
|
Feeb
| | #32 posted June 21, 2009 at 3:49am (EST) |
LiL_Ramsey wrote:
> Umm, when did the Mets become the "lovable losers"? The Cubs have
> had that nickname since the 70's, shortly after the Mets were created...
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lovable+loser...
>
Fudge ya'll haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #33 posted June 21, 2009 at 4:49am (EST) |
I wish bratty kids knew their baseball, thanks for at least quoting him Feeb:
http://ballhype.com/story/ny_mets_1962_history_lov...
They've been known since the lovable losers since year one. |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #34 posted June 21, 2009 at 4:50am (EST) |
metsfan718 wrote:
> I agree that the Mets are lovable but only because they almost make
> it the playoffs on the last day for the past two years . If they
> almost make it for a third year by 1or two games I will not consider
> them the lovable Mets. Three strikes and your out.
You're going to switch sides because they lose, something they've been doing since before you were born? Come on now... |
metsfan718
| | #35 posted June 21, 2009 at 5:54am (EST) |
No I didn't mean it like that. I will always be a Mets fan and I will always love them but I guess I just meant that I would just be really disappointed if they went down again. I should of termed it better... |
DirtyMarco
| | #36 posted June 21, 2009 at 6:00am (EST) |
y'all do realize the only reason I did this was to interrupt the constant cockriding that goes on. Seriously people yall make me sick. At least Feeb and Lil Ramsey will admit that the Braves aren't that good(forgive me if those aren't your teams). Metsfan however insists on playing up the mets like the are the greatest thing ever.
|
metsfan718
| | #37 posted June 21, 2009 at 6:07am (EST) |
Well Mets fans have high expectations for the past few years. We did spend about $150 million on our team ( maybe less I don't have the exact number) didn't we? Braves fans are happy with just making the playoffs for a long period and only winning one championship because their expectations overachieved. |
DirtyMarco
| | #38 posted June 21, 2009 at 6:29am (EST) |
Apparantly taking the Yankees approach to player development hasn't worked out to well. Then again it isn't working for the Yankees either and they have been doing a slightly better(or worse depending on how you look at it) job at acquiring free agents.
|
metsfan718
| #39 posted June 21, 2009 at 6:46am (EST)
edited June 21, 2009 at 6:48am (EST) |
Well the Mets payroll is $50 million less or even more and the Mets have developed their young players and played them on the team like Murphy,Evans,Martinez,Pelfrey,etc. Even Wright and Reyes are homegrown. I think the Mets approach to the free agent market is completely different from the Yankees and they showed it by acquiring only 1 big free agent player in the past 2 years in which they got Krod for a steal. The Mets showed their developing of their young players by acquiring their ace Johan Santana and yes he is considered a non free agent even though he signed a big contract.
All in all Nobody spends as much on free agents as much as the Yankees making their prospects worthless with basically no room on the team for them with the exception of injuries. |
AlphakirA
(frozen)
| | #40 posted June 21, 2009 at 7:01am (EST) |
Tampa made it to the world series last year with nearly the lowest payroll in baseball. I don't know the context of the conversation, but payroll is an excuse. |
|
|
Rules Help 
- Twitter 
- Facebook 
