Would sucking all year been better than the Mets being good then miserable?

I can’t believe this team is 10 under. That means if they get super-hot for two weeks they will at .500. That means they aren’t going to get to .500 this year.

I think sucking all year may have been better than the head-fake of the first half. We could have just said Stupid Wilpons and words like cheap and dealt with a bad season.

Instead we saw life…and now just death. All dreams crushed. Everything going bad to worse.

This run since (some pick the All Star break, some pick June 1 and I like to pick June 3) has been unbelievably bad. It’s not just the losing it’s the sameness and the boredom of the losing. Low scoring games that are over once the Mets trail. They aren’t going to score and the bullpen is going to give up runs. Every night, every game.

Unless you have a 9 inning shutout in you then forget it, and if you do, don’t throw 130 pitches or your shoulder, knee, back will hurt.

It’s still not 1977 but it isn’t 1984 either. It may be 1982.

Related Articles:

My book! $9 for paperback, $3 for eBook/kindle.

3 comments
Sparks
Sparks

No way. The no-hitter alone made this season worthwhile. At least I got a couple of months of wearing jerseys in public without shame.

Ceetar
Ceetar

Oh, it's '84, as much as you can compare a year to a year. It's the year we decide which players are good and which aren't', and bring in the Gary Carter's to put us over the top ('85 team makes the playoffs in '13) People forget how much different small tweaks can make sometimes.

Sparks
Sparks

True dat. It all goes back the "edge" issue. This team desperately needs an injection of gonads in the lineup, and might be dangerous once it gets some. Currently, Johan's the one guy on the roster who'll say, "Hop on my back, boys," but a pitcher just can't play that role when they're only out there every 5th day at best.

Subscribe via RSS

Free weekly newsletter