Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Yankees Deny Rumors That Team Is For Sale

See You On The Other Side

(bumped from FanPosts)

---

I do not count myself among those who condemn being a sports fan as a useless and irrelevant waste of time, although I certainly see where they are coming from, particularly in this day and age. In the past, when players and not laundry defined a team, when sports stadiums were named after public figures and local icons, and when fans were not treated as herd animals to be exploited and otherwise contained so as not to stain their rightful superiors, one could claim a certain romantic charm to following your team, as your team possessed a certain spirit of which you were legitimately a part.

Star-divide

It is possible that a certain vestige of that charm remains even now, despite the morphing of sports franchises into dehumanized corporate behemoths. True, Shea Stadium has given way to a field named after a corporate parasite that has been implicated in massive criminal activity, the volume of which ran into the hundreds of billions. True, this was done with a heap of taxpayer money essentially gifted to one of the richest men in the world upon the obviously fraudulent promise that the revenue generated would make the municipal investment worthwhile.  (If that were the case, the Wilpons would have found a willing private investor. That he chose not to is a telltale indication that he desired and received an outright subsidy.) True, the owners themselves were implicated in a gigantic Ponzi fraud that resulted in hundreds of small investors losing their life savings, and that displayed in stark relief an American economy where insider networks, rigged markets, and systemic fraud, not ingenuity and productivity, comprise the true support structure of a nearly impenetrable elite caste.

But we could ignore all this and focus on our guys. We could truly root for David Wright, Jose Reyes, and anyone else who were truly Mets in spirit. We could band together while they set out to face the hated Braves, Phillies, and Yankees. We could still hold on to the notion that this team in some capacity truly was ours, no matter how tenuous our grip was. We could, in short, suspend our disbelief and focus our energies on something that, despite the protests of the scolds and schoolmarms, has always been and will always be a meaningful enterprise: the best athletes in the world contending for the right to call themselves champions. It sounds like a TNT slogan, but when Mariano Rivera faces Evan Longoria with the bases loaded with two outs in the ninth inning, the contest is as real and meaningful as it was when the Greeks would suspend their wars to hold their Olympic tournaments. At that point, what we experience by proxy is united with what they experience in reality; the player and the fan are confederate, and all else falls by the wayside.

And then, nothing. One day, about a month ago, after a couple of weeks of being too occupied to watch any of the games, I check out Amazin' Avenue, and don't bother reading up on David, Carlos, Wilmer, Kirk, Fernando, or anyone else. I chance upon reading that Fernando had not started half of the games since his call-up, and then simply navigated away. It was only the latest blast of the unrelenting bombardment of idiocy that has defined the tenure of the Wilpons, but it was the blast that expurgated any sentiment I had for this team other than that of pure disgust.

The Mets make me ill. Whatever dignity remains of sport has been obliterated in New York by a management that continuously drowns their team in the infinite sewage flood of its own idiocy. I tune in to watch the heroes triumph over the villains, and so do all of us. We tune in next year pulling for David Wright to put up the slash line of .350/.450/.700 with a clutch factor of +3 wins and earn the MVP award by unanimous vote. We pull for Jose to put up the 20-20-20-80 season and score 150 runs, and to watch Voltron incinerate enemy combatants with his laser vision. And then the Wilpons put up a park that looks like one Earl Santee would have designed specifically to neutralize David Wright. Beltran is compelled to play through chronic injuries to gain an extra two wins at most from a lost season so that we can lose spots in the draft. Jeff Francouer is allowed to exist. Our insufferable fan base continues to excoriate our best players after experiencing a lost season in their absence. The clash of titans is overwhelmed by the farce of clowns.

And so, I've had it. I have not watched a single inning of a Met game in a month. Quite simply, I find watching a Met game to be equivalent to watching Hormel Chavez get his balls massacred for three hours, except with lower entertainment value, and the added benefit of watching the careers of the most talented position players we've ever had needlessly sacrificed to the idiocy, vanity, venality, heedlessness and avarice of those who have, by virtue of criminal injustice, been placed in charge of them, and who profit massively from their own idiocy. Come to think of it, watching the Mets is not as analogous to watching Hormel Chavez as it is to volunteering to take his place.

The Mets are now a freak show first and a baseball team as a distant afterthought. When this ceases to be the case, maybe I'll tune into a game (as I still do occasionally) and be able to stomach it for more than three minutes. Maybe I will again care when we get a leadoff double in the ninth inning of a tie game. I believe I saw just that in one of my rare forays into Met games, and simply turned it off in complete apathy. I have lately come to be more concerned about our geopolitical system being, as I am increasingly aware, on the precipice of abject disaster. Indeed, the moment when I completely redirected my attention away from this team was when I realized that I (and indeed all of us) have much more power over these very geopolitics than over the Mets. The Mets are the apex of pointlessness, far more of a lost cause than the country.

And Hell, I want to return to sanity now, not three years from now. That's my stance.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Comment 192 comments  |  21 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Been fun man

Hope one day the situation is amenable to your return to Metsdom. Stay Grissiony.

Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?

by KeithsMoustache on Aug 16, 2010 11:11 PM EDT reply actions  

Beautifully piece of writing.

I wish I could say you were wrong. About any of it.

by Jack Str on Aug 16, 2010 11:16 PM EDT reply actions  

I understand what you mean, but there is hope...

there still is hope for the future(maybe decades)

And... It's outta here!!!

by SuperSantana on Aug 17, 2010 12:00 AM EDT reply actions  

You still will contribute to the hillarity that is AA, though, right?

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Aug 17, 2010 12:06 AM EDT reply actions  

This is sad, depressing and completely accurate all at the same time

Don’t completely give up on them though. Things will get better….someday

There is no hope.... there is no future....there is only GRISSIONZ

The 2010 Mets- Hey, we may suck, but what did you expect?

by Syler on Aug 17, 2010 12:07 AM EDT reply actions  

Do what I do

Become completely numb from head to toe and hide in a little shell until the each game ends.

www.thesubwayconnection.com

by metsbaseball93 on Aug 17, 2010 1:09 AM EDT reply actions  

I can't say I disagree.

I haven’t watched in over a month as well. Fact is, I like being part of the community here, and I like talking about things, though mostly baseball related, that run the gamut of our interests here. Fact is, I hate the Mets at this point. If I can’t root for a team to win, I’m not really a fan anymore, am I? But I dunno, maybe my hatred is what drives me to continue following, albeit in a purely boxscore/blog based way.

John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.

by squid92 on Aug 17, 2010 1:45 AM EDT reply actions  

You have a point

I have no problem checking the site out from time to time, as it’s a cool group. However, I’m not doing it as someone who, at this point, gives a hoot about the Mets. And if you don’t care about the Mets, you won’t frequent a Mets fan site as much as you did when you did care; that much is self-evident. So yeah, of course I’ll stop in, as this post was far more about shunning the Mets than anything regarding Amazin Avenue, which is a class act. It’s the team (really the organization) that’s classless.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 17, 2010 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

no argument here

John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.

by squid92 on Aug 17, 2010 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

I want

vengeance. I want to see the Wilpons lose a bundle, even if they don’t sell. They are a sore on the baseballk community’s ass, with their collegiality and their nepotism. They have tried to make me miserable (and failed), so I want to see them suffer.

by jdon on Aug 18, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

If it gets to the point where you can't root for the team,

you’ve gotten to the point of being the ultimate fan. At least, that’s what I’ve tricked my mind into thinking. All I’ve wanted this entire season is for the Mets to be terrible. When it gets to the point where the only saving grace is for your team to be terrible, fire everyone and clean house, and you know this and are willing to accept it, that is when you know you’ve become the ultimate fan. I think, I hope, at least.

ain't had enough...

by BlackOps on Aug 17, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

when they finally turn it around

this rock bottom will make the champagne taste that much sweeter

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 17, 2010 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Amen to that, sister

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 17, 2010 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

right now

it’s prune juice, though

by jdon on Aug 18, 2010 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

It sucks that you feel that way

and I’m not going to try to tell you how you should feel about the team, but I wonder how people would feel if this was a really bad team, and not just a .500 team.

You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.

by Kevin H on Aug 17, 2010 11:32 AM EDT reply actions  

i don't think the problem is being bad or .500

it’s the lack of accountability or competence in the front office and management and no real hope of a change.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 17, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

This

It’s about accountability, competence, and direction. We hear every year that the team is building itself to be a contender, but the front office doesn’t have what it takes to actually build a contending team, thus we have become a mediocre team. I’d almost rather be a team in a rebuilding mode and get the feeling that the organization has some direction and some idea of where they want to be in the next few years. At this point, I feel like we are destined to be a .500-ish team, which is just good enough to make the front office think they only need to plug one more hole to become a contender and just bad enough to infuriate the hell out of the fans.

"You know I am only teasing. I love you gals out there -- always have." - Keith Hernandez

by OSUmets on Aug 17, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah like I was fine the last 3 years

with the nets winning 30/20/12 games because I knew they were rebuilding and had an actual direction/plan. There’s no plan here.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 18, 2010 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

rec'ed

i’ve watched the mets be bad before. this has nothing to do with being bad. it’s about making the same mistakes, over and over again, not learning from them, and pretending things would be different. bringing up prospects just to mishandle/bench them, resigning poor unproductive players because of their “heart”, vesting options of any sort, etc. it’s one thing to be bad, it’s entirely another to waddle in mediocrity and pretend like things are improving when EVERYONE here knows they aren’t. the mets FO should check out posts on this website from march and april, they would be shocked.

and it’s not like we have a crystal ball here. we’re just not stupid/blind/willfully ignorant.

"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell

by Rey-O on Aug 18, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out objection

"He has lobby myself, he has lobby Tony, so when these things came out, I was kind of a little bit you had to think about it."
-- Branch Rickey

by Ownbey4Mex on Aug 17, 2010 4:31 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Overruled

This mania can’t last forever. At some point, plugging holes with bloated contracts will led to even greater absurdities. The Mets went from a .400 team with a 115 MM payroll to a .500 team with a 145 MM payroll. The Minaya method will eventually lead either to a .500 team with a 200 MM payroll or a .400 team with current payroll. Eventually, the house comes down.

I’m becoming inclined to call the Minaya Method “Baseball Keynsianism”

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 17, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

You know you can't leave right?

As a Mets fan, it is not allowed. Or else we all would have done so already. That said, enjoy your forays into whatever else it is that suits your fancy for now.

You should print out a few copies of this and send it directly to the Wilpons and senior management. Maybe it will land on the right desk. You never know.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 17, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's all about how we deal with adversity.

Sometimes these threads seem more like 12 step meetings than baseball posts. As well they should, though, given the team in question.

by Jack Str on Aug 17, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

wait whats being overruled?

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 17, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's a My Cousin Vinny reference...

And signifies that even a very good argument can easily be ignored if someone wishes.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 17, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

So,

it IS possible to get to the series? All we need is a $600 million payroll?

by jdon on Aug 18, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a beautiful piece of writing.

You are the legend GenJack. I echo a lot of your sentiments. I haven’t been able to cheer for this team in earnest in well over a year. I root for certain players and root against others. I get a perverse feeling of pleasure when calamity goes down.

www.twitter.com/willDavidian

by All Shook Down on Aug 17, 2010 7:17 PM EDT reply actions  

That was the best thing I've read since I don't know when.

Awesome. Bravo. If I knew you, I’d buy you a beer. Hell, I’d buy you a whole case of beer.

That said. You are far too good to “just leave”. We need more of this insight. Stick around.

AA should let you write for them. If not, Cerrone should just sell…….hell, give you Metsblog to run.

Hey !. Don't talk to my mami like that.

by fxcarden on Aug 17, 2010 7:53 PM EDT reply actions  

Smart to get out while you can

I can absolutely see us all sitting here 40 title-less years from now bitching about Jeff Wilpon, Jr. and needing to overhaul management.

We are on track to be the 21st Century Cubs.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but Jerry abuses the privilege.

by AnthonyR on Aug 18, 2010 1:28 AM EDT reply actions  

eh...

And... It's outta here!!!

by SuperSantana on Aug 18, 2010 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kendy Namo said what I was thinking in his first paragraph.

Damn you, Kendy Namo.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 18, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

a compliment, CPP, if there ever was one

by the by, there’s a typo in the first sentence of the second paragraph i wrote. it should read “i appreciate the frustration WITH all the BS”. Meaning i totally agree that the management has been total bullshit. i did NOT mean to imply that what GJR is saying is bullshit. if you strip away the nostalgia then we share very similar sentiments.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 18, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hate to break up the lovefest, but

you do realize there’s nothing at all particularly “anti-corporate” about Jack’s preamble?

It’s not merely ownerships’ attitude, it’s the players’ as well. And there was no claim in the preamble that baseball never had problems, but those problems were surely of a different kind.

by Jack Str on Aug 18, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

i suppose it's subject to interpretation

but that second paragraph sounds pretty virulently anti-corporate to me. not that i want to get into a merit’s of corporatism, capitalism or anything of that variety. my point was not that you shouldn’t be anti-corporate or whatever, but that you either accept for profit professional baseball, warts and all, or you’re better off writing it all off and following your local high school team.

and sure the problems of the past were a different kind. they were worse. racism, discrimination, gambling, the reserve clause, asshole players utterly lacking in moral turpitude, sycophantic white washing “journalist” at ethically challenged for profit newspapers, etc etc. i’ll take the baseball game we got today over the past, but thats just me.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

i almost forgot, back in the good old days there was...

NO INTERWEBS! without which there was no free and open forum for mets fans to commiserate/celebrate/debate their favorite baseball topics de jour.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

If I may

There was a time when fans were not treated like herd animals, were not exploited to the utmost, and when stadiums were not named after criminal corporations. There was a time when fans could rush a stadium upon winning a pennant and players were associated with teams.

At that time, players were exploited and stadiums were named after individual criminals like Comiskey, but I’d prefer Chicago to have an Al Capone Stadium than a Cellular 1 Stadium. At least Al Capone had something to do with Chicago. At least Al Capone was a human being.

There may have not been a golden age, but baseball HAS been near-totally dehumanized. That much is evident. There re things that are better now. The players are paid what they are worth and teams are smarter with their baseball decisions (with some exceptions) But I would say that overall, it’s worse now. The inane, sanitized corporate doublespeak and for sale sign on every inch of everything that results in Jeff Francouer putting up a blog about Delta Airlines trumps all else.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

nah, all that was for sale back then

baseball owners were never in anything but the business of making money. they’ve just gotten better and more efficient at making money. some call that progress. and others prefer al capone, a cold blooded murderer, to a cell phone company, and i’m ok with that, but i would much prefer the opposite, or at least to be cynical about both the past and the present.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

eh

The thing is, if a corporation is really good at making money, it means that it is good at squeezing every dollar possible from the fan base in every way, including ways that are subliminal and underhanded.

In other words, I consider corporatism to be the worst of all evils. It is the death of the individual. The death of the community.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'll add

in pursuit of maximum efficiency. But corporate efficiency isn’t all that efficient, as we will shortly see.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, no question that many a corporation has effed up a good thing

but if they were being truly efficient, and really on top of their game (as the mets are not at the moment, we are on the same page there) then they should factor in those negative externalities, if for no other reason than for the bad publicity. if the mets were just about bleeding their fans dry they run out of fans in a hurry (this blog post being exhibit A for how thats bad corporate strategy).

it’s a long debate and i dont want to discount your issues with corporations, but i think you’d be surprised the effort and studies being conducted to prove that good corporate governance involves the community as an active stakeholder. or perhaps you youre aware of it and don’t buy it, which is also a possibility (i dont buy all of it personally, anyway).

and i still think the old owners were as big, if not bigger pieces of crap then the current owners. they just had better p.r.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Camelot Effect

vs the Delta Airlines effect.

It’s a good debate.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Here's an analogy.

Disney World was always about making money, but it was also about other things. It was an illusion, but the corporate Disney World lost the illusion.

When Walt Disney could run Disney Enterprises as a human being, he understood the power of the Disney Illusion, and could thus draw the line saying enough is enough. This idea might make us money in the short term, but Disney is about something, and if you go over the line, you lose the illusion, and all is lost.

When Disney goes corporate, the CEO is thinking about maximizing his bonus, and thus loses the long view. Thus he pimps out every nook and cranny, and even those who still go understand that something is missing.

The corporation prostitutes everything in a way that a human being does not. Walt is famous for his response to the request that Mickey be allowed to dance with Gene Kelly in some musical whose name escapes me. “You want Mickey Mouse to appear in a Warner Bros. film?? Mickey Mouse will never appear in a Warner Bros. film.”

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ill give you a more tangible example

I have been listening to SiriusXM for years and was a very loyal listener. After the merge theyb started squeezing every penny they could out of me. Extra money for internet access, extra money for best of Sirius (had XM), extra money for iPhone access. But I loved the radio content so I grudgingly paid.

Last week my radio was stolen from my car and I bought a new one. I called them to activate the new radio, and they tell me there is a $15 “activation fee”. That was it – the straw that broke the camel’s back. I canceled everything and am only listening to podcasts now.

I was dropping these guys nearly $200/year, and would have done so for the next fifty years, happily, if they hadnt gotten so greedy. I felt like my loyalty to the shows I loved was being taken advantage of, and enough was enough.

I am almost at that point with the Mets. They are clearly taking advantage of our loyalty, squeezing every dollar they can out of us, while spending the bare minimum they need to. If I knew this was necessitated by, say, Madoff, I would be more sympathetic. But I dont really think these dopes will change course five, ten or thirty years down the line. I am getting very close to jumping ship, and for many of the reasons expressed beautifully by GJR, which is something that was completely unthinkable even a couple years ago.

Good business in the (very) short term. Terrible business in the long term.

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

i had similar experiences with Sirius and likewise dropped them

i love their product but their business model is pretty screwed. they took on ass loads of debt (XM and SIrius that is) thinking they’d be the only two players in the game. then iPods and the internet came along and ruined their shit.

so yeah, they definitely try and chisel their customers, but thats more out of survival necessities than greed. about a year ago they had chapter 11 papers drawn up and everything. they’ll probably still go out of business, which is a shame, i enjoyed having Sirius most of the time i had it.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree...

On only the following point. The Mets are not nickle and diming the fans for a known product. They have diminshed the value of the product while still charging market rates. If a ballgame cost the same as a movie, the stadium would be filled every night. It’s more of an American cars in the 70s analogy. The corporate superstructure got used to people buying cars of continually inferior quality, and thought that the market would not change. Then Toyota showed up and we all know the rest of the story. Basically, it’s not a question of whether the market would afford them the option of charing what they do, it’s a question of how long the market will support an inferior, and elastic, product. From what I can tell the market is turning…

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know about market rates

I haven’t been to any stadium other than Citi/Shea where I actually remember the entire game, but my understanding is that seats behind the dugout in Philly are like $100. The Mets are putting out a worse product while maintaining prices as if they were a good product.

by Evan_S on Aug 19, 2010 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

markets schmarkets

can’t trust the market to behave rationally.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

seats behind the braves dugout

are like 50 bucks, no lie

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 19, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I got company seats to the Mets at Shea in 08....

Behind home. Ticket price as $245 per. My dad gave me the “My son bought me a Cadillac” look and I loved it. No way the cost estimates here are right….

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again, that's Shea, in NY

My dad’s friend has company tickets behind the dugout and I’ve been lucky to go to several games in those seats (at Shea), and yes they were a couple hundred dollars a piece (not that we paid). However, my dad’s friend travels to stadiums around the country, following the Yankees when they make the playoffs and no stadium is as pricey as Citi or Yankee Stadium. Most stadiums have their behind the dugout seats at around $75. Shit’s more expensive in NY, it’s just the Mets have no right to charge people anything for their shitty product.

by Evan_S on Aug 20, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

you mean walt disney the nazi sympathizer?

i get what you’re saying but even with disney i think the “magic” of the past is over mythologized. plus disney now bank rolls Pixar, which are making the best family entertainment in history. way better than bambi and snow white IMHO.

i’m guessing we’ll start spinning wheels if we get into the larger debate off whether corporations are good or evil. i dont think theyre either, and it’s easy to point out their shortcomings, but i’ll still take the free market capital allocation system to any alternative i’ve seen thus far.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Corporatism is the exact opposite of free-markets

Corporatism is a sham economy that is highly inefficient and depends on government favoritism and systemic fraud. The reason is the separation between ownership and management and the bureaucritization of the decision-making process. These produce DISeconomies of scale at a level much higher than is commonly imagined.

For instance, the dot com bubble and the housing bubble were starkly simple frauds. They began the same way. Low interest rates encouraged financing and stock chasing and discouraged saving (because debt was so easy to service and saving was, conversely, so unrewarding). At the same time, rules are changed so that the consumer who invests in either the dot coms in the 90s or the real estate bubble in the 00s does not know what he’s getting into. (IPO standards were lowered for tech stocks, and leasing standards were eliminated for real estate.) This funneled the money into those sectors (by design) until it’s time to tank the economy so that the favored players cash in. If you really look at the money flows in the US, you see the same thing. Corporate behemoths are UNPRODUCTIVE. They only maintain themselves through fraud and government support.

I need to see some evidence that Walt Disney was anything more than your run-of-the-mill anti-semite. People are flawed. Corporations are psychopathic. There is an important distinction to make here. Corporations have no conscience, no dignity, no loyalty, no human quality whatsoever. I would be wary of excess preoccupation with the standard bugaboos of the past.

Pixar was built, if I recall, by a man who loathed and detested Michael Eisner, to the point where the character from Shrek, Lord Faarquad, was modeled on him.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

By the way

If I do see evidence that Disney was indeed a Nazi sympathizer, knowing full well the implications, and that he was in fact an eliminationist anti-semite, then I obviously have to redact that whole “bugaboo” comment.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was with you

But now you lost me.

Corporations are just collections of individuals pursuing their own personal goals.

Bubbles are in no way frauds.

Your view of the dot com bubble is grossly incomplete, but Im not going to debate it in this forum.

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd love to be enlightened.

Perhaps you could direct me to a source where I might get a more comprehensive view of the dot com bubble.

The behavior of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and the credit ratings agencies during the housing bubble reeks of fraud. AAA ratings to worthless securities? Pushing paper onto your clients that you later bet against? Fanny Mae virtually begging mortgage brokers to give out crap loans and sell them to Fanny at a profit?

Corporations have a tendency to take on a life of their own. It seems incomplete to simply call a corporation a collection of individuals. These individuals have to be organized somehow, and therein lies the problem with the corporate business model-the organization of the decision making process.

You mentioned satellite radio. The music industry is a very good example of the inadequacy of the corporate model. Once you put the music we listen to in the hands of a corporate board, they will turn to minimizing risk (hence, flooding the market with remakes—i.e. proven commodities) engaging in synergistic relationships to maximize returns (institutional radio payola) and generally put out music in accordance with algorithms and spreadsheets. A human being is capable of believing in an artist and actually championing good music. This involves taking risks that the person feels to be worth taking and fighting fights that are worth fighting, which busts some people but is also where all the HUGE returns come from (particularly socially). This is why over time, corporations that exceed a certain size grow inefficient.

A corporation is useful for certain things to certain degrees, but at a certain point.

I will grant that there is nothing inherently evil about people combining for joint ventures. The problem, in my opinion, stems ultimately from granting the corporation the rights of legal persons with privileges that real persons do not enjoy. This was the first of a long series of artificial advantages bestowed on corporations by governments that made the rise of corporate dominance inexorable.

Think of it this way. Amazin Avenue isn’t corporate. Metsblog is.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Corporations as Moby Dick?

i actually think there is a lot of instructive take aways from that analogy.

just out of morbid curiosity, whats the best alternative to such a hopelessly broken system that we have now?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Simple

1.) Allow busted corporations to fail. No bailouts. Ever.

2.) Stop granting subsidies and government contracts to favored corporations. There are tons of corporations that ONLY make money from their government contracts and LOSE money on all their private enterprises. Like I said, it’s a bad business model.

3.) Stop regulating and taxing the hell out of small businesses. People think congress regulates big business. In truth, congress colludes with big business to pass regulations that either don’t apply to those big boys or which congress will not enforce against the bigs. The regulations are designed to deter competition by choking small businesses in red tape. I’m trying to start a school. The regulation burden is ridiculous. I can barely recommend to transfer an autistic child to a specialty school for autism, because some bureaucrat might think it’s “discriminatory”. The purpose of these regulations is obviously to protect the pubic school monopoly. It’s the same in every industry.

Fresh blood is what we need, guided by individuals with vision, with consciences. That will produce real prosperity.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

hell yes

but none of those things require corporations changing how they do business, but instead with limiting government intervention in businesses. i’m all for that. these are all arguments you can find on the op-ed page of the wall street journal by the way.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes and no.

All this would do is allow the corporation to compete on equal terms with entities that are not as bloated or bureaucratic. The corporation, because of the inadequacy of the business model, would lose much of its market share and in turn, its political power. It would still be what it is, but weaker and not as capable of doing damage.

Another thing you could do is remove the privileges of personhood from the corporation.

The Wall Street Journal is less than eager in my experience, to talk about the atrocities of Dyncorp, military contractors, rampant money laundering in major financial institutions, gold price manipulation of central banks, and the US Government’s involvement in drug-trafficking. (The government has pretty much monopolized the domestic industry) and several other shenanegans. They are too cozy with big business for my taste. They could really do some damage if they really pounded the table with something like this. or this.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

what is "the corporation"?

just the shitty corrupt companies? because the less bloated entities would presumably also be corporations, no?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not neccesarily

And regardless the corporation only becomes seriously dangerous upon achieving a certain ize and centralization.

What I would do is replace the corporate model with joint capital enterprises. Companies would go public in tandem but the individual companies would remain in control. In other words, you could invest in New York Bay butchery group and they would be “incorporated” as a group, but each butcher would operate independently, only (perhaps) putting down a “due” for the corporate guild.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah im not following that at all

is there a specific size that a corporation shouldn’t be allowed to be? just what specific mechanism of the “corporate model” is causing the problems? i’m not sure if your concept of a corporation is anything i am familiar with.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

What causes the issue

The Business model of the corporation contains intrinsic inefficiencies.

1) Centralization of resource allocation quells individual initiative and conscience
2)Separation of ownership from management creates poor time horizons and conflicts of interests
3)Excessive compartmentalization obscuring information flow and diffusing accountability
4)excessive systematization of decision-making process also hurts accountability and spontinaety

The model I would pursue would keep direct ownership and control localized (and thus focus accountability) while keeping the benefits of large scale capitalization.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

none of those issues are intrinsic to corporations

you can have a corporation of one person. is it publicly traded companies that are the problem? cause theres way more privately controlled capital in corporations than there in companies with separate ownership and management.

1, 3 and 4 are just problems of all poorly run businesses. free markets and competition take care of the companies that are run poorly by replacing them with better run companies. hence, better mouse traps are built and society progresses.

theres a lot more to corporations than you are considering ‘the corporate business model’. most of your problems with “corporations” sound like policy issues to me and thats a whole ’nother can of worms.

people have been trying to keep companies directly owned while maintaining access to large scale capitalization for millennia. thats the whole essence of corporate finance.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I took freshman economics too...

You used the “better mouse traps” example. Sorry, had to point this out. In no way are 1, 3 and 4 cabined to poorly run businesses. The basic problem with your argument is that it follows the idea that corporations (and in this definition I include LLCs, equity JVs, LL trusts, and many othes examples of capitalization-propounding entities) involve only the shareholders, and those shareholders had an investment choice. In the real world, a lot of investment involves funds that a party may voluntarily or involuntarily enter. Most losses are not taken by individual, HNW, sophisticated investors, but by funds like CALPERS that represent the returement savings of regular folks. Furter, under bankruptcy models, although equity loses first, unsecured and rade debt loses second. Therefore, small business—which usually uses unsecured trade credit rather than secured bank credit—comes second (actually way past second after costs of the proceeding, tax liens etc.). So a failed corporation leaves a far wider tranche of losses than just equity. This is also why I challenge your statement that bad corporations are merely replaced with better ones. Such utter contentment over the Friedman/University of Chicago model got us into the mess we are in, and cannot be relied upon to get us out.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

i never took freshmen econ

i was a journalism major. which really panned out, let me tell you.

anyway, we seemed to have changed topics. i should have added “in theory” to my earlier statement. obviously the real world is far more complex and i never meant to imply that bad companies are “merely replaced with better ones.”

i’m a little lost as to what the new discussion is. ditching friedman for a new model of economic policy? i’m all ears.

by the way, the moustrap analogy is a cribbed quote from Emerson, FWIW.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah...

Sorry for your choice of majors, but I was an anthropology major, which is basically journalism without the pride. In any event, I have maintianed for years that Fiedman was qa tool of the man who espoused intuitively appealijg theories for the benefit of the rich without any real justiificatiion. Part of the reason I argue against some of the baseball stats on here is their basis in the worst part of economics. That is, their basis in the sense that human performance can be reduced to numbers that we currently have the ability to understand and analyze.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

interesting

never made that connection before (sabermetrics and monetarism).

so, alternatives? universal happiness index?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Simple...

Never trust anyone who claims to have a formula that wll solve real world issues. A formula that will help to solve them, sure. But never one that purports to solve them completely. To accept such a thing is to reject the inherent mutivariate nature of life and living in society.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

so simple...

i’ve never met anyone who has claimed to have found such a formula, let alone anyone who trusts someone who claims to have found one. so i think we got that issue resolved.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 20, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

What would have happened if

Citi, JP Morgan, AIG, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all failed, right after Lehman did (and Bear Stearns, Countrywide and Wamu essentially did). Because most of them, judging by the velocity of their share price decline, seemed like they were just about to back then? And if all of the money market funds were allowed to bust (capital flight was fairly astonishing before the government back-stopped those as well)?

Regarding your 3rd point, it is not always a question of the regs not applying to the big corporations but that they have the scale and capital to pay for compliance, although there’s much of what you say as well. Regulatory capture. Madoff was a good example of that, but even though he was head of corporate entities, his fraud was mainly an example of individual initiative, if you will.

by wobatus on Aug 19, 2010 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was on Wall Street at that time...

And the fear of this happening was palpable, not only for those worried about their bonuses, but for the many more worried that we were seeing the second Great Depression. Without further comment, it was scary as fuck. We kind of thought it was going to happen.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Merrill

would have failed that Monday absent the deal with BAC. Morgan Stanley maybe a day later.

by wobatus on Aug 19, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am barred from speaking of this and many other things....

Due to confidentiality issues. Sad that I can’t speak. It would blow your mind.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Was it as dire as it seemed in House of Cards?

I don’t know if you’ve read it, but it sounded incredibly ugly in there.

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 20, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wooh boy...

Big mistake here. I understand and sympathize with your anger over the “too big to fail” doctrine, but without a concommitent effort to regulate size and market reach of entities, there simply is no way around too big to fail. A better approach necessarily requires a way of dismantling and/or disaggregating entities before they are deemed too big to fail. Would this hurt shareholders? In my mind no, as the shareholders of the original entity would be compensated in shares of each broken-apart entity. But the mandate that we let companies fail regardless of market reach is stunningly simple-minded and retributivist without a prior effort to keep those situations from arising in the first place…

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ehh

The problem is, the name of the game is bailout. No one ever tries to do anything about TBTF (and now I’m using zerohedge acronyms) because the whole point is to centralize profits and socialize losses. From NYC to the S&Ls to LTCM, no one kills TBTF. Bailouts are the point.

I disagree with the premise that there would have been a deadly credit freeze should the big 5 banks have capsized. These big 5 do not contribute to the economy at all. Wall Street and Main Street lost any symbiotic relationship years ago. Now Wall Street just sucks money from the rest of us.

Note that we bailed out these banks and are on line for a second great depression anyway.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

LTCM was not TBTF....

Or as we joked, STCMM, or short term capital mismanagement. Hedge funds are rarely TBTF due to the investor rules. Citi is a whole different beast, given the link between commercial and investment banking.

And you are wrong about the credit freeze. It happened, reggardless of the failure of the still-existing banks. I managed LBOs through the process. I saw what happened to credit. I t evaporated. It could not be found. It happened from mid-07 on. You have not been on a call with a client who has a bank that signed a loan commitment that is now strict;ly contstruing all provisions thereof to hopefully avoid extending credit.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

LTCM

wasn’t a bailout, but a workout, under Fed pressure, in the old JP Morgan sense.

A a friend of mine involved in that and the recent crisis said “now THESE are bailouts.”

Yeah, whatever we think about what these banks contribute to society, their simultaneous failure would indeed have been felt on Main Street, in a much bigger way than just a double dip recession and stagnant employment. Mookie’s right. Credit completely froze. We were on the precipice, over it actually, of a complete catastrophe.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 4:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

not ALL the losses were socialized

My problem with the idea with this was the whole point is that if that was the case, a lot of people were very wrong. Lots of people, including insiders of large banks, got practically wiped out, and it was a close run thing that they didn’t all get wiped out.

I don’t think that Jimmy Cayne felt bailed out, Chuck Prince, etc., and Dick Fuld didn’t get bailed out, nor did Lehman’s bondholders. There were a huge load of very bad decisions made, and not all of it was caused by people saying “hey, who gives a shit, we’ll make billions and if we screw up the government will bail us out.” There’s an element of that, but there’s a huge element of simply not realizing what the hell was going to happen. Complacency more than conspiracy. Certainly the government implied backstop fed the complacency.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

I find it hard to believe

That Lehman didn’t know what was happening. My understanding is that they set up a front company with which they would redistribute their assets at certain times to cook their books. So they had to know they were in some trouble.

My understanding is also (I may be wrong) that there exists even now a 1 quadrillion derivatives bubble. I find it hard to conceive that such excess would be possible in any industry unless there were major players who understood that a fix was in. This is not to say that things can’t get out of hand regardless.

Also, note that you can extend credit without bailing out TBTFs. That was the whole problem, the Hank Paulson false choice. Just extending credit does not mean using the Federal Government to buy up your all friends worthless assets with soon-to-be-worthless treasury notes. Nor does it mean giving out free money on the spread between short-term and long-term debt for over a year.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 20, 2010 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know

that LEH knew there were big problems and hid some. I also know that Fuld di expect that the government would have to bail them out. But I don’t believe that they entered into positions with the plan of heads I win, tails I win. Why would they intentionally risk equity of enterprises that had been extremely succesful over the long term to leave themselves in a beggared position? They did not in the end get bailed out. Their creditors didn’t. And their creditors are some of the very same insiders who supposedly know a fix is in.

When they didn’t get bailed, a sclerotic credit market absolutely froze.

Chuck Prince had most of his net worth in Citi stock. Why would he intentionally seek a course where he would lose over 90% of the value of that AFTER the bailout.

Goldman itself, despite having anticipated this better than the other banks, could have failed, simply because the entire economy could have failed and it had a heavy dependence on overnight loans. There was no way of knowing that, even with the bailout, confidence could be restored enough to prevent its failure. Lehman filed Chapter 11 on September 15, 2008. TARP passed in October 8, 2008. Goldman’s stock went from the 160s at the beginning of September (already about 30% down from the previous year’s level) to $47 on November 21, 2008.

TARP had to keep being changed before confidence was restored, but GS, even after government support was evident, collapsed 75%. They were very much in danger of bankruptcy even though they were not the main subprime culprits and had hedged themselves well, had connections up and down the line, and even after they were apparently being bailed out.

Citi went from the $50s to sub a dollar, even after being bailed out.

It just strains credulity to think that there is some star chamber of people who know the fix is in would let that happen, coming within a hairsbreadth of being wiped out themselves, as if this is some well-laid out plan.

And, by the way, if the treasury notes are soon to be worthless, then the primary dealers aren’t exactly getting a get deal. They are required to bid on treasuries.

BTW, i agree with a lot of what you say. Could the government be the main credit facilitators? Fannie and Freddie suggests they aren’t so good at that themselves. getting to the point we were at was insane, and a lot of people realized that, both long and short. But I still do not believe that on the whole the crisis was something that was expected in its magnitude or consciously anticipated as a heads I win tails I win situation. basically, i do not see it as a conspiracy of an entrenched elite caste.

And having gotten to the point we were, the bailout, messy, with many mistakes made, was better than simply allowing all of these banks to fail. The government can supply credit, but with the economy being as damaged as it would have been, it own credit would evaporate, which it may eventually anyway, given the structural imbalances that remain.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

BTW

You know this stuff quite well, and this isn’t really my area. I have got a friend who was a senior economist at the fed, worked on the Basel accords and now works as risk chief for a major european bank (which was likewise bailed out). I am going to ask for his take on what might have happened if the banks were all allowed to fail, with government taking over the credit market. of course, his view may be a little biased, but I think he’ll give an honest assessment as best he could.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not necessarily pushing conspiracies

I’m not saying there is a star chamber out there licking their chops at the prospect of world domination (though groups like CFR make me reticent to dismiss the thought entirely).

I’m talking more about a general culture of chicanery. It’s very possible for such a culture to exist and that key players would miscalculate certain things, creating a mess that was beyond their control.

Also note that I don’t necessarily know that much about these things. I’m a layman who’s pretty much educating himself as he goes along. And I’m always looking out for new info. In that sense, I don’t really want to get into an argument, since I don’t know enough to actually argue the big picture effectively.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 20, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

What I would prefer

Is more of a forum where I could get some info about some of this, as it’s mighty hard to come by.

I also know a few things that the average finance jock does not necessarily know and that give rise to suspicion that something is not on the up and up.

I can point to definitive evidence of the US gov. dominating the drug trade, of massive money laundering going on at the big financial institutions (trillions per year) of deliberate engineering of the housing bubble through HUD fraud and Fannie Mae, and of outright atrocities committed by Dyncorp (I linked above to an article in the Chicago Tribune reporting that the US Gov, continued to give them contracts after it had come out that certain networks of Dyncorp had been abducting Serbian kids for sex slavery. If there is a star chamber out there, Pug Winokur and Dyncorp would definitely be on the board.

I would say what is necessary is a forum where this info could be combined with more technical and general info so that the pieces can be better put together.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 20, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good luck with that

and watch your back. I know Harry Markopoulus was nervous about trying to expose Madoff for example. With billions at stake people can react badly.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Culture of chicanery

There’s certainly that. There are also a lot of very decent people up thechain in these organizations, which I know doesn’t moot your point about corporations and the culture they foster. But a lot of them are very concerned about the very things we are discussing.

No arguing. Spirited discussion. I thoroughly enjoyed your back and forth with Kendy.

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

wheels already spinning

if i implied i support crony capitalism then i misspoke or was misinterpreted. politics and free markets intertwine with often disastrous results, that is for sure. and corporations have no human qualities, that is also true. however neither does any institution. that doesn’t make all institutions bad. just the ones run by assholes. (for examples please see season 1-5 of the Wire).

point remains that disney of the past was as much about making money as it was about creating magic then as it is now. i will contend that any presumptions to the contrary are mistaken, just like the nostalgia for old school baseball is misplaced.

also shrek was not a pixar film, it was dreamworks. regardless, the merits and detractions of eisner’s reign at disney could fill volumes, and indeed has. his legacy will not be settled here.

and i know disney the nazi is as much urban legend as anything but run of the mill antisemitism a mere bugaboo? that’s charitable of you.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hear you

I tend not to care what people’s opinions are if they don’t hurt anyone.

But I must disagree on something. Saying that Disney was ONLY about making money is like saying the Beatles were ONLY about making money. It is not true. Since they are human beings, they also care about other things.

Corporations are collections of human beings, but they organize these human beings so that they cannot act in a human way, It is not the assholes who are the problem in a corporate model. It is the business model that tends to reward psychopathic behavior and constrain good people so that they must follow the corporate line. The corporation is what ONLY cares about money. It is virtually the only entity that only cares about money. So if you work at a corporation and the board decides that you will invest in private prison stocks like Wackenhut or CCA because the government will ratchet up its arrests of nonviolent offenders, you can’t say anything. First because it is the rational course of action for a corporation concerned with money and nothing else. Second because the corporation is the person. You are simply a cog. And if you quit, someone else take your place.

This bad decision making ultimately makes corporations unproductive after a certain time. The only advantage a corporation has is that it is utterly ruthless. If the path to shareholder wealth involves money laundering, drug-running, bribery, blackmail, or murder, the corporation will do it. It is only a corporation that will choose to leave explosive cars in the market because the cost of recall will be marginally greater than that of the lawsuits. For humans such behavior is an exception. For corporations, it’s the norm.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

it certainly does sound depressing from that perspective

theres a lot to get into and theres no way i can explain how and why i disagree with so much of what you’ve seen for it to be any kind of worthy investment off time here on this message board, so i’ll just question why, after explaining how inhuman corporations are (and i agree one hundred percent., they aren’t people, they’re a nexus of contracts) why you insist on assigning them distinctly human characteristics, like psychopathy and ruthlessness. seem at odds to me.

and, all right, one more question. how did you ever become a fan of pro baseball, a privately controlled business venture that enjoys politically favored status? it seems anathema to everything you hold dear.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well

If a human being acted in the way a corporation does, he would be called psychopathic/ruthless etc. The corporation is of course, non-human. The individual actors are not (for the most part) psychopathic. But the subordination of the individual to the collective entity, combined with the legally defined goals of this mechanism, combined with the compartmentalization of responsibility, in effect, creates an artificial psychopath.

This is not inherent in corporate action, but rather a consequence of the nature of corporate decision making, combined with its political treatment. At bottom, all I’m really doing is criticizing a business model. (Well, that’s what I got around to doing in this subthread.)

The answer to your second question is my dad was a Met fan, and I like baseball.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

By the way

Sports revenues should go directly to the fan base. The fan base should get to vote for their local Sports officer, who would then appoint the GMs, presidents etc. It is absurd that such a thing is the domain of a private monopoly. Note that sports, because of its public nature and its triviality, is one of the only industries I’d do that with.

The first step to doing this is the easiest. Tax the hell out of sports franchise revenues. They will sell to the state gov. real quick.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

that sounds like a nightmare to me

ever think about buying “stock” in the GB packers?

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not my no.1 priority

I don’t get why it would be a nightmare. Worst case scenario is worse sports entertainment, (which is why I would only advocate this for entertainment.) And less people watching less sports may well be a good thing.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, sports as entertainment

pro sports should be treated as any other business. no special favoritism or punitive taxes.

it’s absurd that local governments give huge subsidies to pro sports, no doubt. but as a sports fan at least the bullshit politics is working out in our favor. doesnt make it right but but its something i can live with.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

i dont know how you get out of bed every morning

with that attitude. well, agree to disagree then.

and again, i think your local high school baseball team would be much more in line with the sports experience you’re looking for. that rational and pro sports do not seem like a good mix.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK

Though I’m not sure of exactly where the disagreement is.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

thats ok too

its probably better left that way

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

GenJack...

Maybe you’re true calling is in the economic market blogs. Dealbreaker too. Trukly without snark, I agree with a lot of what you say. Maybe for the time being your efforts would best be used to those ends….

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Zerohedge it is!

But truly, this got sidetracked. I kind of just had a bit of an anti-corporate tone, which turned into this bit.

But I think I might have mentioned that these issues lately have been capturing my interest far more than sports.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

ZeroHedge

I read a lot of that stuff. Tyler Durden,

by wobatus on Aug 20, 2010 4:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

oh give me a break

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL...

Sorry, had to. Is an internetz rool.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

so no robots?

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 19, 2010 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Brilliant post and thread

Great post, great debate. I have nothing to add that hasnt been said better already, but this is great stuff.

The inane, sanitized corporate doublespeak and for sale sign on every inch of everything that results in Jeff Francouer putting up a blog about Delta Airlines trumps all else.

Brilliant!

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

In Light of Bobby Thomson's Passing

I must have watched “The Shot Heard ’Round the World” clip a hundred times yesterday. Somehow the excitement of that moment seemed so real and genuine, even poignant in a way. I don’t want to get into a good-old-days frame of mind, because they were not all good, and they were definitely not more innocent, although they may have been simpler. I saw my first Mets game in the Polo Grounds in 1963, lived through 1969 and 1986, and everything else along the way. I think our current fandom or lack thereof might simply be a reflection of the times. Our society has become increasingly corporatist, and sports has followed suit. I’m rambling and I apologize. I want to root for the Mets, but this team and its mishigas just sucks the fun out of baseball.

by ColoradoMetsFan on Aug 18, 2010 6:42 PM EDT reply actions  

No call to apologize.

Damned good post. Wrt the corporatist bent in sports, that’s absolutely the case. Maximizing profit involves commodifiying everything that can conceivably be commodified, selling everything that can conceivably be sold, and squeezing every last dime out of everything that is sold, and of course that has a corrosive effect.

by Jack Str on Aug 18, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I haven't watched a bit in close to two weeks

Still check out Gameday occasionally and always look at the box scores. I wish I could remember if my drop dead point was earlier or later last year.

by Mount17 on Aug 18, 2010 6:42 PM EDT reply actions  

I've pretty much done the same thing.

I haven’t watched a game by choice since June. I check in regularly at AA. It’s the ultimate “mother’s basement” scenario. I have a full understanding of the short comings and success of the team without ever watching an actual game. I still follow and hope but have no emotional investment in every outcome. I sleep much better during baseball season as a result.

This organization is a gong show. Hoping it will change with current ownership is like banging your head against the wall. I have no desire to give this organization my money and that includes advertising dollars by being an SNY viewer. If I can’t starve the beast, I’ll at least keep more money in my pocket and keep my blood pressure down.

by Reg Dunlop on Aug 18, 2010 6:44 PM EDT reply actions  

yup, amen to that.

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Aug 20, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you should send this to the organization

if you can find some sort of email address. Maybe send it to somebody in the media with some pull or something. The organization should know (and should care) that they are turning away their fans.

Great post and good luck in your post-Mets life.

The one and only mistermet on teh Interwebz!

by Steve Schreiber on Aug 18, 2010 6:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Without owners who give a damn, I cant blame you.

Thank you. For saying something. For caring. Thanks for being a fan. I am sure the Wilpons care.

Consequences will never be the same.

by NetsMets4Life on Aug 18, 2010 7:01 PM EDT reply actions  

The ownership stupidity really is the straw that breaks the camel's back

The Mets are on the verge of entering Knicks/Raiders territory in terms of ownership that is so blissfully out of touch with reality – Wilpon’s comment a couple of weeks ago about Jeff doing a great job was just absurd. Hopefully it will not take the franchise’s falling to Knicks levels of complete ineptitude before ownership realizes he needs to bring in people who have some clue as to what they’re doing. Otherwise it’ll just be reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic…again.

by dontstopbelieving on Aug 18, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thomas ruined them, as well as Walsh. The Knicks have been ruined for at least a decade.

It pains me to say this, but the Wilpons are not far at all from reaching that territory.

Consequences will never be the same.

by NetsMets4Life on Aug 18, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Walsh didn't do nearly as much damage as Thomas

Not to mention that he not only improved the team’s record, but he also put them in contention for landing the big FAs this summer. The plan didn’t work as expected, but they’re in much better shape now than they were under Isiah

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 18, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

there's also the fact that Walsh's hands have been largely tied by Dolan

from what I understand. And they really didn’t give up much of anything in the dumping of salaries. Jordan Hill was a meh prospect who shot up boards because it was an incredibly weak big men class. Dumping him was akin to sending a bottom round pick with a bad contract which teams do all the time. And he was really the only asset given away.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 18, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

They're getting there.

Wright and Reyes may never return to peak form, and they’re no longer cheap, so the benefit the team got from two HOF level players with very favorable contracts is permanently gone. There are some decent players in the minors but absolutely no one who is at all likely to be a star. The Wilpons have no clue at all how to find good people to run or manage the team. Despite signing Santana and Beltran and Pedro, and getting several great years from Wright and Reyes, the team is still a joke, a laughingstock, and now the benefit of having two great young players is essentially gone, Beltran and Santana are in decline, and the Mets are stuck with Jason Bay for at least three more years.

The only reason the Mets were able to contend in 2006 through 2008 is because they were able to significantly outspend the rest of the league. If that’s no longer the case, the long night is just beginning.

by Jack Str on Aug 21, 2010 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

i feel like that some times. usually among loooong endless winning streaks

end the end of September. I’ve asked myself ’why i root for such helplessness and incompitence?" Yet i return each april with bright eyes,hope, and good feelings.

Sir i feel for your disgruntled attitude. I do. And i want change and i want the mets to be a winner just as bad as you and everyone here. But i cant stop. Something about the mets keeps me coming back. Maybe its the good times me and my dad had at shea and the continued good times we have talking about the mets, no matter how bad they are. The mets mean something to me i cant really define and it makes me happy at the end of the day.

I refuse to give up on them even though the organization fails and gives up on a yearly/daily basis. I believe it’ll turn around. And i want to be there and see it

I hate Philadelphia so much.

by the caveman on Aug 18, 2010 7:14 PM EDT reply actions  

As bad as they are though

If Bay can rebound next year, if Beltran can play better and they upgrade at 2b with Havens or a free agent, and if Dickey comes back, couldn’t this team win 90 games in 2011? Especially if they hired a non-buntaholic manager? I think so. Lot of ifs of course, but still.

by David G on Aug 18, 2010 7:42 PM EDT reply actions  

The things you mention could happen, David.

They very probably won’t, but they could. I hope to have the time to do an AAOP this year, and I’ll focus on precisely those kinds of things so as not to give in too much to despair over where the Wilpons, Minaya, and Manuel have taken this team.

Look at how many things have gone wrong for the Mets this year, and in spite of that they’re still a .500 club. Wright has not improved much over his poor 2009. Neither has Reyes. Pelfrey hasn’t taken a step forward. Two-fifths of what was starting rotation at the beginning of the year provided negative performance. Francouer was everything I feared he’d be—and less. The Mets CFer, with 3/4 of a Hall of Fame career already banked, has been as bad this year as Francouer. Castillo was everything we feared he’d be, and Minaya actually put replacements on the field for Castillo that were worse than he was. Jason Bay has been far worse than his severest critics expected he would be. Yet here we are, right around the .500 mark.

The talent is on the roster. This team is a good manager and a good GM away from contending, even with no increase in payroll. We’re likely to be stuck with Minaya, but Manuel is probably gone, and the Wilpons may accidentally hire a good manager (I wish I was kidding with that remark) in his place, one that knows how to work a roster and get the best out of his players. The lack of a payroll may give Minaya no choice but to play the right players. 2011 might be fun, and certainly should be more fun than 2010.

I understand completely Gen. Jack’s disgust with the team. At the same time, and until I too can swear off the unhealthy addiction that is these New York Mets, I’m compelled to see, unflinchingly I hope, ALL the possibilities.

by Jack Str on Aug 19, 2010 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not that big a stretch

I definitely think that’s within the realm of the possible.

by wobatus on Aug 19, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Wilpons are inept, egregiously so, but,

I don’t think you can say that they were “implicated” in the Madoff scandal, if that is what you are suggesting. As far as I know, they were victims. Now, they aren’t appealing victims, in that you rightly point out that they thought they were having access to an investment of a type which the rest of us schmucks never get to partake. Still, I have not heard that they are “at fault” in the Madoff scandal.

The litany of their failures really is humorous/sad. Jeff Torborg, for example, has got to be the dumbest man to ever manage a baseball team, at least in the 90s. To have their last two managers flaunt and brag about their disinterest in sabermetrics is also unconscionable in this day and age. Whatever it is that made the Wilpons rich, it wasn’t deep analytical thinking or a respect for same, and if wasn’t that, it was probably connections. This is why I have similar trouble watching this team.

by JoeGoNets on Aug 18, 2010 7:54 PM EDT reply actions  

They actually made money from madoff

so they definitely weren’t victims at least in that sense.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 18, 2010 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good point, Gina, but with a caveat,

They got more from the investments from Madoff than they put in, yes, but they thought that what they put in had grown much faster. I assume Madoff assured them they were making X and really they were making only a small fraction of X. They were victims in that sense, and they took an unexpected financial hit.

by JoeGoNets on Aug 18, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right....

But the 15% they thought they made never existed. They made less than a fantasy, but a lot more than they would have made investing in CDs. So in my mind it’s a profit, regardless of what they were told.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 18, 2010 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

They knew that they were in a scam

The profits were so high that it was impossible for it not to be a scam. They didn’t know that the scam was a simple pyramid.

The point is, at the Wilpon level, it’s all about the swindle. The Wilpons knew they were in on a scam and they participated because on that level, it’s all about scamming for fast money. The fiasco with the Mortgage-backed-securities just brought it to light.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

You'd be surprised how far willfull ignorance can get people

Deep down somewhere, Fred knew his money wasn’t legit, but if he doesn’t actually ask, he can’t say he knew for certain.

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 19, 2010 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

and even if Fred knew

I think I’d be willing to believe Jeff is dumb enough to think the it was legitimate.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 19, 2010 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

They are both too dump to have know

Fred, Jeff, Katz, all of them are fools. No chance they knew. If they knew, they would not have kept ALL of their money there.

Plus, the restructuring of Bonilla’s contract is proof that they expected to receive >9% annually, forever.

Just a bunch of morons. Nothing more sinister than that.

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

*dumb. Not dump.

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is exactly right...

And when you get a year-end statement from a guy who has been in business for as long as Madoff, supposedly under SEC and SIPC scrutiny, there is a certain reasonable ability to rely. The problem with regulatory regimes is that, in the case of sophisticated investors, they can give a false sense of security.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is correct

Furthermore, they now have the threat of a clawback – Uncle Sam coming to collect the ~$50mm in past profits; money long since spent.

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

and this is where the big problem for them would come in

because with the real estate market still in the toilet it’s unlikely they have 50 million lying around, let alone what it would cost them in legal fees.

mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon

by Gina on Aug 19, 2010 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

people are still making plenty of money in real estate

with the market in the toilet. i have no idea how the wilpons are doing with their RE racket and you very well may be totally correct but people with opportunistic funds (ie vulture firms) are doing pretty all right.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

when they made their money in real estate

real estate was a no-lose proposition. Even I could have made money in real estate. What an ass I am.

by jdon on Aug 18, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Excellent - everybody knows that.

by borasblog on Aug 19, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

real estate was a no lose proposition

as long as you knew exactly when to take your money out. which of course is the eternal rub of investing in anything.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

With respect to Madoff...

Best I can tell, they made a net profit personally—which may be disgorged but hasn’t been yet—and they lost money owned by their e,ployee retirement funds. In other words, implicated, as any investment advisor who invested 3rd party funds with Madoff without looking into Madoff’s investment strategy may be “implicated.” This does not mean that they were in cahoots with Madoff, but they are definitely a substory of of the scandal.

As for all your other points, agree.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 18, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nice article

I can certainly empathize. However I will continue to root for this pitiful mess of a team, even if the Wilpons start operating Citi Field meth labs and whore houses to pay off their mounting debts. Why? Because I’ve been rooting, watching and supporting them for so long that I don’t know how to “not” do so. Stupid? Probably. But it’s the team I grew up watching, and as a fan I look forward to the day they get new owners, new GM, new coaches, a no-hitter and win another WS. As a matter of fact it will feel even better because I know in my heart that I never gave up on the team – even with all the ineptitude. Hell – my favorite NBA team (LA Clippers) make the Mets look like a finely-run organization (I was going to say “look like the Yanks” but it made my stomach hurt to type that).

So I definitely respect your opinion and enjoyed your post. And – even though I’m part of the problem and not the solution, see you when you come back.

by bones_boy on Aug 18, 2010 9:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Whore houses and meth labs eh?

We start doing that, hello $600 million payroll. Turn Citi Field into the Wilpon’s version of The Carter Apartments from New Jack City.

by MookieTheCat on Aug 18, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Halfway there.

It’s already the Carter Hotel.

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 19, 2010 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know the philosophical debate rages

over whether to root for the Mets to win, or root for them to lose knowing that Jerry and Omar need to go to build long-term success.

I’m now at peace with the Mets losing every game for the rest of the season. As much as I’d like to see the individuals succeed, the greater good is short-term failure and long-term success.

So suck it up, do what’s right, and lose, Mets. And if you are going to win some games—make them against the Phillies or Braves, because that never fails to make me smile.

by enigma2029 on Aug 18, 2010 9:24 PM EDT reply actions  

I approve of this message

our greatest victory this season would be total defeat.

Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?

by KeithsMoustache on Aug 19, 2010 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Frustration Noted...But There Is Something Wrong With Us, Something Seriously Wrong With Us.

We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts! Here’s proof: his nose is cold! But there’s no animal that’s more faithful, that’s more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw the 06 NCLS? Who cried when Beltran struck out at the end? Nobody cried when Beltran struck out? I’m sure. I cried my eyes out. So we’re all dogfaces, we’re all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to be Mets fans. We’re mutants. There’s something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us – we’re fans. But we’re Mets fans! We’ve been getting our ass kicked for nearly 50 years! We’re 2 and 45! Now we don’t have to worry about whether or not our team is good. We don’t have to worry about whether Jerry Manuel wants to us to bunt. All we have to do is to be the great Metropolitans baseball fans that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlw4Edt-e8

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 12:53 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Here here!

This may also be pertinent.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know if this means much...

But I’m a Yankees fan, and I feel sorry for your fanbase. Two of my closest friends are die hard Mets fans, and have been all their lives, so I see the pain and torment they go through first hand. I manage to get a lot of free tickets to Citi Field, and one of my friends actually has to question going cause he cannot bear to watch the team anymore, due to the piss poor way the organization is run. All I can say is that here’s hoping for the best for the team you all love and root for.

"WHO WOULD LEAD?! THE CLOWN?!"

by I'mGivingYouARaise on Aug 19, 2010 11:37 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

I have been to one game in my life

The first baseball game I actually ever attended was on my father’s birthday, as a gift. The family attended together. At the price of an arm and a leg, we were privileged to watch on the day the Mets Hall of Fae induction ceremony in 2010 as the Mets got walloped 14-1.

That may have had something to do with it.

Nothing can get by him; especially in a small room: Mike Francessa

by GenJackRipper on Aug 19, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

fyi most high school games have free admission

and you can bring as much food of beverage of your choice as you can carry.

just sayin’ is all.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.

by kendynamo on Aug 19, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh man, really?

So sad for you. I was in the low-numbered mezz for the Ventura grand slam single game. The fire felt that night kept me warm for a decade. Wearing off now, but…..

by MookieTheCat on Aug 19, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

that was the alcohol....

Hey !. Don't talk to my mami like that.

by fxcarden on Aug 20, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

The problem with being

in the impenetrable elite caste is there are always new entrants.

by wobatus on Aug 19, 2010 7:15 PM EDT reply actions  

Bravo with this well written essay [I read it twice]

I haven’t cared about this club for years….wanted to write “organization”, but you have to be organized be called one…

 I still flip on SNY to watch the debacle, because I do like watching R, G, K…(although I wish Gary would stop spewing love for Crapcouer…he sucks, get over it!).

I only began blogging here this year because AA bloggers are an amazing bunch of fans.

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Aug 20, 2010 5:13 PM EDT reply actions  

Don't let this stuff

detract from your enjoyment of things worth enjoying. A Reyes triple, a Wright home run, Niese getting a grounder, Santana getting someone to wave weakly over that dead duck change-up.

As Sean Penn says to Jim Caveziel in Thin Red Line, what difference can one man make in all this madness.

by wobatus on Aug 22, 2010 9:32 AM EDT reply actions  

Barbarino

Woody from Cheers, the kid from Say Anything and Ulysses Everett McGill all in there too.

by wobatus on Aug 22, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Put another way, everyone was in that movie.

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 22, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Even Oscar winner

Adrien Brody, who basically just got to look scared shitless for a couple of scenes.

Malick cut scenes with Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Vigo Mortensen, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas and Mickey Rourke.

Malick didn’t make a movie between Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line. Almost 20 years. I always wonder how he made a living in between. Same with Thomas Pynchon between Gravity’s Rainbow and Mason and Dixon. Actually, there was one other book, but there was a 20 year lag. And he wasn’t doing short stories or scripts, at least not under his own name.

by wobatus on Aug 22, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Reportedly, Brody only found out that he'd been largely cut out when he got to the premiere.

Malick’s filming another movie right now, FYI. His 3rd in 12 years. By his standards, that’s a heavy workload.

May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 23, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Gary_carter_small
fxcarden's Nightly Rant! - Vol. I, No. 2 (August, 2011)
Small
A projection of the rest of 2012 using two key stats
Gary_carter_small
fxcarden's Nightly Rant! - Vol. I, No. 1 (July, 2011)
159714144_040c6c1501_small
The Greatest Bison: Frank Grant and the Color Line
Small
A WIN METHOD Analysis of the Current State of the Mets

Recent FanPosts

Small
Game Replays
Img_1435_small
This Week in Mets Quotes
Small
Santana or Sabathia?
Small
Whats to be done with the 'Pen?
Small
What about Oswalt?
61atehunexl__sl500_aa300__small
This Week in Mets' Overreaction

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

At 5:30 PM EDT today Starting today at 5:00 PM EDT, witness one of the greatest renderings of visual sound effects ever!

UPDATE 1: My browser has crashed several times in the process from all the rants (FUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!) - as a result, there will instead be 4 or 5 separate installments of fxcarden's Nightly Rants! from 2011, with a similar pattern for the 2012 rants. Take my word for it, when I say that it's for the best. Here's the revised schedule:

Volume 1: 2011
No. 1: Today at 5:00 PM EDT
No. 2: Tomorrow
No. 3: Thursday
No. 4 and No. 5 (?) TBD

UPDATE 2: Vol. I, No. 1 (July, 2011) is now up!
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeautiful colorization of Willie Mays' over-the-shoulder catch. Credit from Beyond the Box Score via Reddit. Embiggen at http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7071/7231074678_3faa94a82b_o.jpg
Frank Francisco is... The Most Interesting Closer In The World embiggen
2013 ALL-STAR GAME(TM) LOGO CONTEST

Major League Baseball has formally announced that Citi Field will be the site of the 2013 All-Star Game. (see video) In light of this, I have decided to launch an All-Star Game logo contest. To help get you started, I provided all of you with a sample All-Star Game logo. (click here to embiggen) If you wish to participate, please enter your submission with an image below, in the comments section. The contest ends on May 31st. I will choose a select number of finalists, and the community will vote on which of those logos is the best one.

Can you create a better logo than the sample logo provided? Then, give it a shot. Good luck to all participants!
Jon Rauch is awesome. Dan Tanna is, obviously, a fan of Greg Pomes.

Recent FanShots

Ike will not be demoted
Mocking the MLB draft
Our God would like an extension please
Win Expectancy Calculator
Are Pitch Counts Ruining The Game?
What's Mike Baxter's Ceiling?
Francesa: Ike Has 'Jungle Fever'
Mets At The Quarter-Pole: Doing Things The Wright Way
WTF is up with all the larry lovefest

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Yahoo_full_count

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Gary_carter_small
fxcarden's Nightly Rant! - Vol. I, No. 2 (August, 2011)
Small
A projection of the rest of 2012 using two key stats
Gary_carter_small
fxcarden's Nightly Rant! - Vol. I, No. 1 (July, 2011)
159714144_040c6c1501_small
The Greatest Bison: Frank Grant and the Color Line
Small
A WIN METHOD Analysis of the Current State of the Mets

Recent FanPosts

Small
Game Replays
Img_1435_small
This Week in Mets Quotes
Small
Santana or Sabathia?
Small
Whats to be done with the 'Pen?
Small
What about Oswalt?
61atehunexl__sl500_aa300__small
This Week in Mets' Overreaction

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


THE BIG GUY

Aa_avatar_small Eric Simon

THE INCREDIBLES

Blackfish2_small Alex Nelson

Endy_small Rob Castellano

Img_1262_small Matthew Artus

Kanye_pekka_small Sam Page

Best_infield_ever_small James Kannengieser

Metsstitches_small Eno Sarris

48900_1085732804_4466_n_small Chris McShane

Lg_rocker_ap_small Matthew Callan

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

THE NEWS GURUS

Mrmet_small Steve Schreiber

3_small Stephen Schmidt

159714144_040c6c1501_small Pack Bringley

124967042_crop_340x234_small Jeffrey Paternostro