AWESOME! a true hero for our time. only the mets could scroow this up. i think he goes to texas and becomes a WS champion if they give mets olt and leonys martin. i am fine with that trade and will root for R.A. but it is shameful how mets have jerked him around. only the mets wouldnt want a national figure of RA's potential magnitude on their team. the power move would be to keep RA and make a run for bourn and cody ross, but it is clear ownership has decided to tank the next few seasons while they pay debts and restore family wealth. they are averse to financial risk right now but the box office hit can really hurt them. RA was born to be a met, his struggles and perseverance have METS AND NEW YORK written all over it, he may well become the biggest individual draw in mlb the next few years, and a national voice against child abuse. mlb should sponsor PSA's on this issue utilizing RA. imagine RA starting the allstar game in NEW YORK and the following contending mets team: bourn tejada murphy wright davis ross duda shoppach/thole. with RA johan harvey niese gee and wheeler/mejjia for a rotation, and a decent veteran reliever added to FF parnell edgin familia hefner and some of our other young BP arms we could be a legit WC contender. it will be heartbreaking to see RA win a cy young and WS with texas while we finish 4th and wonder what might have been, but given the mets wont sign bourn AND ross, we can only hope the prospects we get for RA pan out. alderson wasnt brought here to win, he was brought here to protect ownership . WRIGHT's agent should have insisted on an opt out clause in david's contract to protect him against broken promises from front office. he must be sick to his stomach having deffered about $8m this yr to see how offseason has played itself out so far. there is still time, but the club seems stuck in limbo.

I don't think the Mets have jerked him around. I just think they never should have said they were upset by Dickey's comments.

When a CY Young award winner is offering you a hometown discount for an extension and you for whatever reason decide to stall the deal, you're supposed to just shut up and let him say he is a little disappointed. (btw Dickey also said numerous times including in the same interview with Kevin Burkhardt that there are other sides to this that he doesn't see but understands that there is another side to it)

This whole thing was blown out of proportion thanks to the Mets' reactions. Dickey never made a bad comment, he answered the question that was posed to him in a respectful and honest way.
That being said, I don't think the relationship has soured to the point where there is no hope of signing him.

They never said they were upset with what he said, rather they were upset with where he said it.

In an interview?

edit: With the SNY's Kevin Burkhardt the TV station personally that is directly affiliated with the team?

Thats pointless semantics and you know it, they know it, we all know it.

They were upset that he said it at their annual charity event.

All I saw was him saying it in the interview. Are you saying this was a separate thing?

"I just think they never should have said they were upset by Dickey's comments"



Just because a BLOGGER (paid for OPINIONS) says some unnamed "source" said "Mets were upset by Dickey's comments" doesn't mean that's really what was said. Unidentified person that could be a stadium sanitation worker for all we know. If anything at all was actually said.

Bloggers are paid to stir up controversy to increase readership. Things get taken out of context. Misquoted. Embellished. Wouldn't put too much stock in these supposed "reports" from anonymous "sources."

Well that's what I've been questioning with some other posts. I asked where are they getting stuff like the team is unsure about dickeys new celebrity and how that will manifest in the clubhouse.

Being a blogger is a great job. You get to make stuff up & get paid (well) for it!!

SI is still kiss of death

The story came from Joel Sherman and Mike Puma and it didn't cite any unnamed source. The only reference to a source was a "team official".

"Team official" IS an "unnamed source"!!!

Joel Sherman & Mike Puma. Bastions of reputable journalism. LOL

As opposed to who? Whatever sports writer shills for the organization so you can agree with them?

A "team official" is an unnamed source, but was not cited as the source of the organization's displeasure. The word "official" also implies it's not a stadium sanitation employee as you so colorfully suggest in an attempt to distract from the issue.

Just to be clear, you distrust a story written by two established NY sports writers, writers who are frequently cited on other sites like MLB Trade Rumors and Metsblog, but when a member of an organization that has lied repeatedly for years, is owned by men who were actively investing in two separate Ponzi schemes and actively encouraging others to participate and sold minority shares in the team to friends who are under investigation for consumer fraud and insider trading makes a statement it should be believed?

I did like this line though

" Sandy Alderson acknowledging the possibility that the 2013 roster won't look much different than the 2012 roster. That would be the same roster that won 74 games last year, that Alderson described as needing major changes way back on ... December 2, a roster that as of today, lacks a viable starting major league outfielder, catcher, and more than a skeletal bullpen."

This quote has the potential to say everything about this offseason and the state of the Mets if they end up doing nothing.

As opposed to writers who attribute quotes to a specific individual. And using WHOLE quotes. Makes a difference to know ALL of what person actually said vs taken out of context, misquoted, embellished and/ or given erroneous interpretation.

And unnamed "source" can be just about anybody. Even team "official." Might have no real knowledge of what's going on. Could be Mr. Met for all we know!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from your last post:
"writers who are frequently cited on other sites like MLB Trade Rumors"



from mlb Trade Rumors Nov 27, 2012

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/david_wright/page/2/

"agent Seth Levinson explained to MLBTR: “Discussions with the Mets are ongoing. We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon. However, things can always change. I will not characterize the negotiations or comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of what is being reported," Levinson said."

from Puma (NY Post) Nov 28, 2012:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/talks_on_megadeal_hit_snag_over_ziLiUGDY4FdGNMvW2uGQaP

" “We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon,” Levinson told the website MLB Trade Rumors, adding that discussions with the Mets were ongoing."

Perfect example!!!

Puma took mlb Trade Rumors story & decided to leave out the rest of what Levinson said. Stopped at "We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon.” Left out that Levinson said "However, things can always change. I will not characterize the negotiations or comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of what is being reported." Changes whole meaning of what Levinson said!!

Puma's job is to create as much controversy as possible. Leaving things out helps create more controversy. Even where there isn't any!!

Mlb Rumors story on Nov 27th. Puma wrote on Nov 28th. Wright's $138M deal was agreed to Nov 30th. Things DID "change" in just couple days -- just like Levinson said they could. But you would've had to read WHOLE quote to know that. Unlike Puma's "report."

Thanks for proving my point!!!

What Alderson actually said was different than that though. Gist of it was he wouldn't speculate on OD roster. Too early to know.

Actually your MLBTR example is quite poor especially since there are plenty of other great examples.

Leaving out the rest of that quote didn't change the facts or misrepresent the situation. If talks are ongoing, implied is the chance that a deal may come. Or else why are they talking? There's nothing wrong with that.