Well, that is certainly rich.
you two idiots got anything insightful?
"Someone please tell me exactly where this move improves the team we've watched underperforming the last 6 years?????"
It doesn't. All it does is prevent it from being worse. We're at a point where anything that does not lead to the team being worse is seen as an accomplishment .
why is that your response?
Because I am a diehard mets fan and have been since I knew what baseball was I have to agree with every move the organization makes?
I think we just signed a very good player (and again I repeat he is a very good player). But his overall production is replaceable, by improving the other positions we have struggled at (OF and Catcher) while then Allowing Murphy to move back to his natural position and grooming Flores to take over possibly mid season.
Bam now you have a team with a lot more salary flexability and possibly the same amount of production if you acquired the best pieces in a Wright trade.
The only really benifit to David Wright at this point is off the field for the Mets. And to sign a guy for a 120 million dollar extension for off the field purposes is crazy!
great, just what I look for in rooting for a team "mediocracy"
I say either try to be really good or be really bad to get really good.
but there is the problem. I think some Mets fan are happy we made a move?
I think it was a sign of desperation to keep the "novice" Met fan happy. Die hards are going to stick with the team through thick and thin and understand that every move should be made for baseball reasons and not social reasons which I think had a lot to do with this move.