• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Classless Met Announcers Bashing Braves During Yesterday's Radio Broadcast

Mitchell

Level of Coral Feather
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
33,544
Points
48
I try to keep the sports bantering to a minimum, but I want to express myself about the completely classless Mets radio announcers during yesterday's Mets Braves game. Once again, they started with the old bash on the Braves of "Fourteen straight division titles and only one World Series win". You would think, after twenty years, that they could do something more original, especially so early in the season.

Let's see, Mets, hmmm, while the Braves were winning those divisional titles, where were you? From 1991 to 1996, you were at or near last place. In 1998 and 1999, we directly ended your season, first by sweeping you three games in a row, to deny you the playoffs, when you only needed to win one, in 1998, and then beating you in Game Six of the 1999 NLCS.

Need more? In 2000, you make the World Series, likely because the Cardinals beat us in the first round, then, you succumb meekly in five games to an 88 win Yankee team. From 2001 to 2005, even for three of those years without Tom Glavine, and two without Greg Maddux, the Braves win five more division titles. You, on the other hand, win no more than 83 games in any of those seasons, not even approaching the playoffs. In two of those years, 2002 and 2003, you are in last place.

In 2006, the one year the Mets won anything, they had a good season, and I gave them credit for that, and ending our streak of divisional titles. If I recall, I made a classy post tipping my hat to the Mets in 2006, on the night they won the NL East. Am I supposed to say the Mets lost to an "inferior" Cardinal team in the 2006 NLCS because the Cards won only 83 games, and the Mets won 97 games?

Oh, yes, the topper of them all. Hmm. 7 game lead in the NL East for the Metropolitans, 17 games to play in 2007. Leads like that should be locked up. What do the Metropolitans do? They blow the lead, and dont even make the playoffs, completing the worst collapse in baseball history.

Bottom line, Mets, until you make the playoffs fourteen straight years, you have no right to say anything. The ONLY teams who have even comparable success to the Braves, and not even as much, are four teams. The Blue Jays, who won two world titles in 1992 and 1993, the Marlins, with World Titles in 1997 and 2003, the Red Sox, with their 2004 and 2007 championships, and the Yankees, who won four World Series from 1996 to 2000, and have made the playoffs every year since 1995. Besides that, no team even comes close.

Mets, you should tell your broadcasters to worry about broadcasting your games, and not ripping the opponents on the field, especially opponents with more success than you. I've always despised the Mets, but this makes me despise them more. They have a solid team, one that may go far this year, and I respect that. I would rather see baseball wins and losses take place on the field, than bantering in the papers or by members of the media. I've said this too when the Braves have shot their mouths off. End of post.

Mitch

One final point: The fourteen straight division titles won by the Braves from 1991 to 2005 is a streak that has never, and likely will never, be equaled in professional sports history. I hope the Braves win one or two more World Series, but, even if they dont, their place in baseball history was secure long ago.
 
I try to keep the sports bantering to a minimum, but I want to express myself about the completely classless Mets radio announcers during yesterday's Mets Braves game. Once again, they started with the old bash on the Braves of "Fourteen straight division titles and only one World Series win". You would think, after twenty years, that they could do something more original, especially so early in the season.

Let's see, Mets, hmmm, while the Braves were winning those divisional titles, where were you? From 1991 to 1996, you were at or near last place. In 1998 and 1999, we directly ended your season, first by sweeping you three games in a row, to deny you the playoffs, when you only needed to win one, in 1998, and then beating you in Game Six of the 1999 NLCS.

Need more? In 2000, you make the World Series, likely because the Cardinals beat us in the first round, then, you succumb meekly in five games to an 88 win Yankee team. From 2001 to 2005, even for three of those years without Tom Glavine, and two without Greg Maddux, the Braves win five more division titles. You, on the other hand, win no more than 83 games in any of those seasons, not even approaching the playoffs. In two of those years, 2002 and 2003, you are in last place.

In 2006, the one year the Mets won anything, they had a good season, and I gave them credit for that, and ending our streak of divisional titles. If I recall, I made a classy post tipping my hat to the Mets in 2006, on the night they won the NL East. Am I supposed to say the Mets lost to an "inferior" Cardinal team in the 2006 NLCS because the Cards won only 83 games, and the Mets won 97 games?

Oh, yes, the topper of them all. Hmm. 7 game lead in the NL East for the Metropolitans, 17 games to play in 2007. Leads like that should be locked up. What do the Metropolitans do? They blow the lead, and dont even make the playoffs, completing the worst collapse in baseball history.

Bottom line, Mets, until you make the playoffs fourteen straight years, you have no right to say anything. The ONLY teams who have even comparable success to the Braves, and not even as much, are four teams. The Blue Jays, who won two world titles in 1992 and 1993, the Marlins, with World Titles in 1997 and 2003, the Red Sox, with their 2004 and 2007 championships, and the Yankees, who won four World Series from 1996 to 2000, and have made the playoffs every year since 1995. Besides that, no team even comes close.

Mets, you should tell your broadcasters to worry about broadcasting your games, and not ripping the opponents on the field, especially opponents with more success than you. I've always despised the Mets, but this makes me despise them more. They have a solid team, one that may go far this year, and I respect that. I would rather see baseball wins and losses take place on the field, than bantering in the papers or by members of the media. I've said this too when the Braves have shot their mouths off. End of post.

Mitch

One final point: The fourteen straight division titles won by the Braves from 1991 to 2005 is a streak that has never, and likely will never, be equaled in professional sports history. I hope the Braves win one or two more World Series, but, even if they dont, their place in baseball history was secure long ago.


You better hope you-know-who doesn`t read this thread. He will have a meltdown on a EPIC scale.

P.S.

Mr You-know -who

Serenity now!!! Keep your composure; my good friend. I know you can:scared:
 
Actually, Flock, I dont know who. If you'd care to pm me about it, then do so. If someone wants to debate this with me, let them feel free to. I posted my view of what the Mets announcers said. If another person doesnt like or agree with my post, that is their right, just as I have my right to post it. I'm not doing anything against the forum rules, or attacking another forum member. I'm merely posting my view about something a Met broadcaster said yesterday, that I disagree with, and that I think was presented in an unprofessional way for a broadcaster.

Mitch
 
Talking trash about the Braves doesn't make them classless. They just know that they're in better shape right now. This could be their year.
 
Baseball announcers for a particular team (as opposed to, for example, announcers for ESPN) are usually grossly biased for their own team. The Mets announcers are no exception, and I usually find them quite obnoxious when they're broadcasting from L.A.

Just remember that the Mets give them their paychecks and don't let it get under your skin.
 
Fiend, the key would there is "Could". Yes, I acknowledge that the Mets have a good team, and this "Could" be their year, but I remind you of 2003 to 2005, when everyone thought the Phillies were going to win the NL East. Philly had loaded up on talent, and the Braves lost Glavine, Maddux, Sheffield, Millwood, JD Drew, et al. The Braves, each year, were predicted to finish in third place, and, in 2003 and 2004 won the NL East handily, and then held off their foes in 2005. Anyone who counts a Bobby Cox team out isnt being realistic. Yes, the Braves have two over 40 pitchers in Glavine and Smoltz, and yes, Mike Hampton may give us nothing, but the Braves have a habit of surprising everyone. The Mets have plenty of question marks. Pedro didnt pitch for over a year, and now is gone again. Delgado is getting old, and likely on the downside of his career. Moises Alou is gone for a long period of time. I dont honestly believe that the Mets are going to run away and hide from the rest of the NL East like they did in 2006. It will probably be a three team race down into September, unless the Braves and Phillies really underachieve.

You might well see one of two things. A balanced division, with three teams of 90 wins or more, with two of them making the playoffs, and another one going home. Or, a weak division, where someone with a winning total in the high 80s makes the playoffs, and you have a team with say 88 wins as the NL East champ, and an 86 win wild card team, with maybe a mid 80s team going home.

I make this prediction: I don't know who is going to win the NL East. I think the Mets, Phillies, and Braves all have a shot. I predict that it will be a three team race into September, and, that none of the three is going to win the division in a cakewalk runaway.

Mitch

Mils, thanks for the support. I dont think the Braves announcers were completely biased toward the Braves when they won all those division titles. I didnt see the Carays, or Van Weiren, or Sutton and Simpson going on TBS 100 nights and year, and going "Oh, the Braves are going to dominate everyone". If anything, Skip was cautious, and Sutton was realistic. If the Braves messed up, they said so.

We'll see what happens.
 
How is pointing out the obvious and a fact classless? Does homerism know no bounds? Yes the Braves won 14 straight titles, that streak is incredible on the surface but once you actually look at it only produced 1 count them 1 World Series Title. And when you get down to it thats all its about winning the Series. The Braves were always the cream of a weak NL East crop but once the postseason hit they were average at best. A Met's announcing team isn't classless at all its just doing their job and oh yeah pointing out the truth.
 
Ask the other MLB teams if they would like to win 14 division titles. Don't even mention the series, just say the words "14 division titles". See what kind of response you get.

Call it weak division, call it what you like. Bottom line is the Braves won those division titles when no other team could (again, just ask them if they would like to win the division - then ask "how about 14 times?"). It's called being the better team and yes, with 14 division titles it is obvious.

Oh and trust me, ANY team in Major League Baseball would absolutely love to win one, count them (1) world series title.

Don't feel too bad about the remarks. As Milagros said, it's part of the local job. The other day I was listening to a Chicago Bulls game and they began ripping into the Miami Heat and especially Pat Riley. For what purpose? Again, it's just a local thing and part of their gig. I wouldn't take it personal Mitch.
 
Ask the other MLB teams if they would like to win 14 division titles. Don't even mention the series, just say the words "14 division titles". See what kind of response you get.

Call it weak division, call it what you like. Bottom line is the Braves won those division titles when no other team could (again, just ask them if you would want to win the division). It's called being the better team and yes, with 14 division titles it is obvious.

Oh and trust me, ANY team in Major League Baseball would absolutely love to win one, count them (1) world series title.

Don't feel too bad about the remarks. As Milagros said, it's part of the local job. The other day I was listening to a Chicago Bulls game and they began ripping into the Miami Heat and especially Pat Riley. For what purpose? Again, it's just a local thing and part of their gig. I wouldn't take it personal Mitch.

See this is what astounds me about some people...........

I didn't knock the Braves, in fact if you read my statement I said their streak was incredible. BUT the name of the game isn't winning a Division Title, its all about the World Series. End of discussion.

With that said the Braves only got the job done 1 time, yes 1 time out of 14 straight chances. For those who are wondering thats .07% of the time during that incredible run did they get the job done. Again I say great regular season team, average at best postseason team. The announcers pointing out a fact does not make them classless.
 
See this is what astounds me about some people...........

I didn't knock the Braves, in fact if you read my statement I said their streak was incredible. BUT the name of the game isn't winning a Division Title, its all about the World Series. End of discussion.

And this astounds me how people do things without even realizing it..

You didn't knock the Braves?

Yet you attributed their division titles to being incredible "on the surface" ?

And "The Braves were always the cream of a weak NL East crop"? Which let's face it, is a kind way of saying "they had a winning record but didn't play anybody".

And you don't see this as knocking a team?

Again, if this is such a bad thing and the only thing that matters is a series title.. ask the entire list of teams in MLB how they would feel about winning 14 division titles.
 
And this astounds me how people do things without even realizing it..

You didn't knock the Braves?

Yet you attributed their division titles to being incredible "on the surface" ?

And "The Braves were always the cream of a weak NL East crop"? Which let's face it, is a kind way of saying "they had a winning record but didn't play anybody".

And you don't see this as knocking a team?

Again, if this is such a bad thing and the only thing that matters is a series title.. ask the entire list of teams in MLB how they would feel about winning 14 division titles.

No pointing out facts is not knocking them its TELLING THE TRUTH! 14 straight Division Titles is incredible on the surface, the reason for getting to the playoffs is to win the World Series and the Braves only did it once. Face facts.

And your last point is so trivial its absurd. Yes the first time a team gets to the playoffs its remarkable but after that its always about winning the title. Any time you don't its a failure in the postseason. Mediocrity should not be cheered.
 
I agree with your fact Storm, and I think I know what you are trying to display.

But to simply brush off 14 straight division titles, as if to say they mean nothing simply because you didn't win the series (or at least only once).. now that's what is absurd.

Sure every team wants to win the series, but let's face another fact. Only one team is going to do that. Going by your logic, every other team in baseball wasted an entire season and accomplished nothing simply because they weren't that one team.

Also here's another fact. Lots of players have player incentives and bonuses based on 'winning a division title'.

Sure, winning the series IS what it's all about. I totally agree with that. Every team and player wants that. But it's not the ONLY thing that matters, and that's my point.
 
I agree with your fact Storm, and I think I know what you are trying to display.

But to simply brush off 14 straight division titles, as if to say they mean nothing simply because you didn't win the series (or at least only once).. now that's what is absurd.

Sure every team wants to win the series, but let's face another fact. Only one team is going to do that. Going by your logic, every other team in baseball wasted an entire season and accomplished nothing simply because they weren't that one team.

Also here's another fact. Lots of players have player incentives and bonuses based on 'winning a division title'.

Sure, winning the series IS what it's all about. I totally agree with that. Every team and player wants that. But it's not the ONLY thing that matters, and that's my point.

I know what your point is and I'm respectfully telling you that its flawed. Baseball is a team game with the ultimate goal being winning the World Series. If you don't believe that to be true then just WOW...........

That being said when you fail to win the Series, yes your season failed in its primary objective. Contracts have nothing to do with this argument and to bring it up is ridiculous.
 
I guess we will agree to disagree, because I definitely do not see a team that wins a division as having a meaningless wasted season.

Also, I brought up the 'winning a division title' contract issue to point out that players do actually play for reasons - in addition - to winning the series.

Why? To prove my point that just because you do not win the series, it does not mean your season meant nothing.

Again this logic will go over your head.

Have fun this season Storm.
 
Storm, if your point is true, then the Mets announcers still have no basis to bash the Braves, because, in the last 22 years, how many World Series have the Mets won? Gee, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to count this high, the answer to that is ZERO. My point really is this about the Mets announcers, dont knock the Braves, until your team has equaled or outdone them. If your point about "It's all about the World Series" is true, then the Mets have absolutely nothing to crow on about either. They lost to a likely inferior Dodger team in the 1988 playoffs. (Sorry, mils). They were beaten out by the Braves in 1999, lost to the Yankees in 2000 in the Series, lost to the Cards in the NLCS in 2006, and had the worst collapse in baseball history in 2007. This is hardly a Mets team that has a great history in the postseason in the last 22 years. The Braves, by contrast, while they probably should have won more than one World Series, there was only one time, or maybe two, when they really blew it. In 1992, they were up one game to none on Toronto, had a lead in Game Two and Jeff Reardon blew the lead, and Toronto came back to win the game, and the series. If Atlanta wins that game, who knows? Maybe they win the 1992 WS. In 1996, I'm the first to admit that the Braves completely blew that World Series . They bashed the Yankees in the first two games in New York, get swept three in a row in Atlanta, and blow a 6-0 lead in Game Four. Besides that, they either ran into a hot team, hot pitcher, or other scenario, in some cases losing to the team that either won it all, or to a team that took the AL champs to a seven game World Series.

All I'm saying is that the Mets really need to pile up some successful history before they should bash the Braves. One division title, losing in the NLCS, and blowing the biggest divisional lead in baseball history in the shortest time frame, hardly qualifies as successful history. If anything, I think after last year, it's the Mets who are under the microscope this year, and not the Braves. The Braves, in only one preseason prediction, are picked to finish first in the NL East. Everyone else has them second or third. They have two 40 plus pitchers, a complete question mark in Mike Hampton, they lost Andruw Jones, who still gave them 25 hrs and 90 RBIS in a down year, and Chipper is always hurt.

We'll see what happens, but I think the Mets announcers comments were wrong, especially so early in the season, and with the Mets failures in 2007.

Mitch
 
I guess we will agree to disagree, because I definitely do not see a team that wins a division as having a meaningless wasted season.

Also, I brought up the 'winning a division title' contract issue to point out that players do actually play for reasons - in addition - to winning the series.

Why? To prove my point that just because you do not win the series, it does not mean your season meant nothing.

Again this logic will go over your head.

Have fun this season Storm.

Wow you almost pulled off civility and yet you had to throw in a "classless" insult to blow it. So tragic.........

Let me post this rational once again in hopes that maybe a 2nd time it sinks in. Baseball is a TEAM game and as a TEAM the primary goal is to win the World Series. If you do not accomplish that primary goal then yes you fail in that regard. Doesn't me the whole season was a waste but it does mean that the primary goal was not accomplished. 14 straight DT's is incredible but at the end of the day they only got the job done 1 time. THATS FACT!!!!!! I didn't make it up, it happened. Everytime they won one of those titles their goal as a team was to win the Series and they only did it once.
 
Storm, if your point is true, then the Mets announcers still have no basis to bash the Braves, because, in the last 22 years, how many World Series have the Mets won? Gee, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to count this high, the answer to that is ZERO. My point really is this about the Mets announcers, dont knock the Braves, until your team has equaled or outdone them. If your point about "It's all about the World Series" is true, then the Mets have absolutely nothing to crow on about either. They lost to a likely inferior Dodger team in the 1988 playoffs. (Sorry, mils). They were beaten out by the Braves in 1999, lost to the Yankees in 2000 in the Series, lost to the Cards in the NLCS in 2006, and had the worst collapse in baseball history in 2007. This is hardly a Mets team that has a great history in the postseason in the last 22 years. The Braves, by contrast, while they probably should have won more than one World Series, there was only one time, or maybe two, when they really blew it. In 1992, they were up on Toronto, and Jeff Reardon blew Game Two, and Toronto came back. If Atlanta wins that game, who knows? In 1996, I'm the first to admit they completely blew that World . They bashed the Yankees in the first two games in New York, get swept three in a row in Atlanta, and blow a 6-0 lead in Game Four. Besides that, they either ran into a hot team, hot pitcher, or other scenario, in some cases losing to the team that either won it all, or to a team that took the AL champs to a seven game World Series.

I'm not going into the psychology of why they made the statement, I merely said stating a fact is not "classless". And why do you only want to talk about the last 22 years? Is it because before those years the Braves weren't exactly a relevant team? Again thats not bashing thats a fact. I mean you are getting all uppity about the Mets not having anything to boast about but if I recall they've won 2 WS Titles (1969 and 1986 are they only ones I'm remembering off the top of my head) so according to your logic shouldn't the Braves win another one before they talk about the Mets?

Sorry Mitch but to me you only got up in arms about this because you are a Braves fan and it was stated by a hated rival's announcers. There's nothing wrong with what they said.
 
Storm, I hate the Mets. I'll be the first to admit that. Let me ask you this question: Say it was reversed, and the Braves still had their TBS home team format, and they had won the 2 World Series, and Skip Caray et al had bashed the Mets, if the Mets had won fourteen straight division titles, but only one World Series, and Atlanta had won two World Series, thirty nine, and twenty two years ago? Would you be consistent, and say that Caray had the right to say that? Just wondering.

Mitch
 
Storm, I hate the Mets. I'll be the first to admit that. Let me ask you this question: Say it was reversed, and the Braves still had their TBS home team format, and they had won the 2 World Series, and Skip Caray et al had bashed the Mets, if the Mets had won fourteen straight division titles, but only one World Series, and Atlanta had won two World Series, thirty nine, and twenty two years ago? Would you be consistent, and say that Caray had the right to say that? Just wondering.

Mitch

You can spew hypotheticals all day Mitch but it doesn't change anything. I'm assuming you are using this trivial attempt because you mistake for a Mets fan. Well I clear that up for you easily, I'm not. Truthfully I don't care about the Mets or the Braves for that matter. But if the roles were reversed yes I'd say the same exact things. Stating a fact is not classless.
 
This isn't a personal attack Storm. You're taking this way too personal my friend..

I simply fail to see that not winning the series means nothing.

True, the season will be disappointing, especially if your team even makes it to the series. But it's not the end of the world just because they lose.

I never disputed the Braves only won one series during their run and I never disputed baseball was not a team sport with the main objective being to win the series.

I simply stated a season still has meaning to a team and it's players even if they do not win the series - albeit a little slightly disappointing.

Which team would not like to win the series?

I just don't see why you are carrying on like if a team does not win the series they wasted the season and their season meant nothing.
 
This isn't a personal attack Storm. You're taking this way too personal my friend..

I simply fail to see that not winning the series means nothing.

True, the season will be disappointing, especially if your team even makes it to the series. But it's not the end of the world just because they lose.

I never disputed the Braves only won one series during their run and I never disputed baseball was not a team sport with the main objective being to win the series.

I simply stated a season still has meaning to a team and it's players even if they do not win the series - albeit a little slightly disappointing.

Which team would not like to win the series?

I just don't see why you are carrying on like if a team does not win the series they wasted the season and their season meant nothing.

I have totally agreed that a season can hold meaning without winning the Series. I have only said not winning it means you failed your primary goal.
 
Going back to Mitch's original post, I don't know if I would say it was 'classless' - but I think Mitch took it as at least disrespectful. That I would agree with.

Mets announcers are not going to shine accolades on the Braves that's for sure. But to denounce their accomplishments as meaningless just because they won only one series in that time was disrespectful.

I think it's a case of Mets announcers being Mets announcers. It happens in all sports. What some may think of as 'classless' or 'disrespectful' others may think of as competitive rivalry.

To each their own.
 
Last edited:
Storm, I can agree and disagree with you on this.
Yes the ULTIMATE GOAL of any team is to win the world series.

But to reach that goal, you have to make the playoffs in the first place.

If reaching the playoffs did not matter, and meant a nothing season unless you won the world series, then there would be no season. Just teams in a playoff format and then done.
What is done in the regular season is recorded, where players make their marks in the books, and without a successful regular season they can not be even in the playoffs.
If the regular season winning of a division was useless without a winning a world series they would not keep the stat in the record books. They would simply print this " MLB Records 2007 Season-- Boston Red Sox 4-0 Colorado Rockies 0-4 all other teams did not play in the world series"

So where yes I agree that the ultimate goal is to win a title, but to lower the significance of having a chance and being in the playoffs is not really good form. Should they have won more than 1 out of 14....maybe. Does it mean they were a bad post season team....most likely. Will any other team be able to say that in the future, 14 division titles....probably not. But then ask the Buffalo Bills how many times they like to mention they went to 4 straight Super Bowls....but lost. Not too many times I reckon.

Rob
 
I know this isnt the NBA, but look at that sport for one minute:

While it's true that many times a number one seed in the conference, or the top seed overall, can end up as NBA champs, look at all the times the Lakers and Celtics battled through the years, and the Celtics won 65 to 70 games in the regular season, and coasted through the Eastern playoffs, only to be beaten by the Lakers in the Finals. The playoffs is a crap shoot, bottom line, in any sport. In 1995, the Houston Rockets won 40 odd games in the regular season, and swept the Magic in the Finals. In 2004, a heavily favored Lakers team, with home court advantage, which is crucial in the NBA, was beaten relatively easily by the Pistons in the Finals. The best team record wise in the respective playoffs does not always win. The old saying is "Everyone starts the playoffs zero and zero.", and it is so true. It's amazing how many times in team sports people go in thinking "This team is going to win, or that team is going to win", and it doesnt happen. In the 1995 World Series, a 90 win Braves team beat a 100 win Cleveland team, primarially because Tom Glavine had two great starts, and Steve Avery pitched a wonderful game in Game Four. 1995 was the one time Atlanta should not have won the World Series, and did, as they used the home field advantage, and some great pitching to Cleveland's volcanic lineup, to claim the title.

I say, a team needs to have history before they talk, and the playoffs is a crap shoot. Sometimes, the favored team wins, but, in many cases, teams that are underdogs end up winning the Championships.

Mitch
 
Storm, I can agree and disagree with you on this.
Yes the ULTIMATE GOAL of any team is to win the world series.

But to reach that goal, you have to make the playoffs in the first place.

If reaching the playoffs did not matter, and meant a nothing season unless you won the world series, then there would be no season. Just teams in a playoff format and then done.
What is done in the regular season is recorded, where players make their marks in the books, and without a successful regular season they can not be even in the playoffs.
If the regular season winning of a division was useless without a winning a world series they would not keep the stat in the record books. They would simply print this " MLB Records 2007 Season-- Boston Red Sox 4-0 Colorado Rockies 0-4 all other teams did not play in the world series"

So where yes I agree that the ultimate goal is to win a title, but to lower the significance of having a chance and being in the playoffs is not really good form. Should they have won more than 1 out of 14....maybe. Does it mean they were a bad post season team....most likely. Will any other team be able to say that in the future, 14 division titles....probably not. But then ask the Buffalo Bills how many times they like to mention they went to 4 straight Super Bowls....but lost. Not too many times I reckon.

Rob

Rob I expect a little bit more credit from you my friend. I didn't discount what they did in the regular season, in fact I commended them for that magnificent accomplishment. And yes we agree that they were an average postseason team during that run. Divisional Titles are a great accomplishment in and of themselves. But, when we look back at past seasons in the future you only remember who won the World Series.

The crux of this argument which at times has seen to go by the wayside is for the Mets announcers to state a fact is not classless.
 
What's New
9/26/25
Visit the TMF Chat Room! It's free to use for all members!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top