In Kerel Cooper’s above video he responds to a Mets fan question asking if anyone cared to speculate if the Mets will finish .500? Cooper’s response? He believes yes the Mets will finish below .500 and he cites 3 specific reasons.
1. The Mets inconsistent play.
2. The Mets bringing up young inexperienced kids for the remainder of season.
3. Santana being a question mark the rest of the way.
If the Mets then finish below .500 would you view this season as more of a failure than last season? Would them finishing below .500 be ok with you because you didn’t expect much to begin with? Should this season even be compared to last season to begin with? Let us know what are your feelings on the matter.
8 comments
TRS86
9/7/2010-3:28pm at 3:28 pm (UTC -4)
Too difficult to compare these seasons in my opinion. Last year was devastating due to injuries. This year is disappointing because it’s difficult to put a finger on exactly what went wrong. While I still believe this was an 82-88 win team just like I had always imagined, it will now be a struggle to get there with playing the youth so early (not that the old could have done better).
I do believe that this team is only a few changes away from being in the middle of things for next year and I do not believe that all hope is lost nor that the Mets will now not compete until 2012 or later.
metsfan4decades
9/7/2010-4:08pm at 4:08 pm (UTC -4)
I hate making predictions….
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Mets don’t finish at .500 or better. This ‘won one, lose one’ path they’re on means they’ll have to fit 3 more wins than losses in their somewhere just to get to .500.
Maybe we can get 3+ wins or better off teams not in the playoff hunt who are playing youth – same as us. Although, that certainly didn’t help yesterday. Not when the Nats have a prospect that hit not one, but two HRs in the game, one being the 11th GS we’ve given up this season.
GravediggerHebner
9/7/2010-4:25pm at 4:25 pm (UTC -4)
I consider 2010 more of a failure yes. 2009 was historic. I would have liked the organization to prepare for/respond to the epic injuries last season in a more productive way but I cannot ignore the epic nature of those injuries.
2010, fresh off that experience, reveals flaws with the ownership in terms of resources provided to the GM; with the GM in terms of resources provided to the field manager; and with the field manager in terms of his utilization of the whatever resources were provided. 2009 was an unprecedented disaster but 2010 was an underwhelming response at every level of the organization to the lessons of that disaster.
It’s subjective of course but I feel that I can more easily and fairly hold specific parties responsible for the failures of 2010 whereas 2009 felt more like one of those proverbial “acts of God.” Whether or not I’m going to hold God responsible for the 2009 Mets is a separate topic for another day.
stickguy
9/7/2010-4:30pm at 4:30 pm (UTC -4)
assuming they finish at about 78 wins, I will pencil in 2010 as more disapointing, since I had higher expectations than last year. THe sheer volume of injuries last year made it hard to really judge results vs. expectations.
But, Jerry proved to be terrible, and the FO not good enough, so from that standpoint, the season is a success, if it leads to a housecleaning.
saltygary
9/7/2010-5:02pm at 5:02 pm (UTC -4)
I never thought this team was better than 3rd place so it’s not a disappointment to me, I’m just overly frustrated.
I thought the pitching was going to be a disaster and it was a nice surprise. The team showed a lot of heart in the beginning which was the first time since game 6 IMO. So that was enjoyable. But in the end the record is reflective of the product on the field. I felt the same pessimism in 09 but it was too hard to pin it on them due to injuries. Now we know with real numbers what the team is capable of.
The organization now has a great opportunity to test the youngsters without wasting 2011 on the tryouts. Analyze who has a chance to stay in the bigs and give them a shot next year and hold off on FA to clear payroll. After 2011 start using the payroll flexibility to fill in the gaps.
People don’t like to hear it, but it’s about building a stronger product for 2012 and beyond. Not repeating history for the sake of 2011.
GravediggerHebner
9/7/2010-5:06pm at 5:06 pm (UTC -4)
I agree so completely with your last paragraph it’s scary. With the Castillo/Perez/Beltran (and other) contracts set to expire after 2011 and those players having little or no value right now it pretty much has to be the way you outline it.
kingman 26
9/7/2010-6:34pm at 6:34 pm (UTC -4)
To me, 2009 was very clearly the bigger disappointment. Coming off another last-day failure, with lots of stars coming off healthy, productive years, and adding KRod and Putz, I thought any reasonable person had the right to at least expect another 2007-2008 type of year.
This year, with Wright/Reyes/Beltran returning from beaning/injuries, with the very shoddy pitching some of us noted in the spring, and with the abominable garbage like Jacobs and Matthews starting the year in key roles, only the rosiest of rose-tinted Met fans expected anything above .500 and 3rd place.
So yeah, 2010 has sucked, but has not been THAT much of a disappointment, as the team in the offseason and spring looked very clearly like a mediocre .500 team, which is precisely what they are.
oleosmirf
9/7/2010-6:40pm at 6:40 pm (UTC -4)
2008 was the worst by far