The Morning Grind: Kumbaya vs. Devil’s Advocate

I haven’t done a Morning Grind in a while, although my colleague Clayton has done a nice job with them lately. But there’s something that’s been bugging me in the last few days and I wanted to bring it to a debate.

Basically, it’s a question based on so much of what I’ve seen on this site as well as others and it’s rampant on Twitter as well.

Why is being critical of Sandy Alderson equated to Mets hating or bashing?

Have you gotten that sense too?

Do you remember this for Jim Duquette or Al Harazin or Omar Minaya or Joe McDonald?

I’ve been blogging about the Mets and commenting about them since Al Gore invented the internet, and I don’t ever recall a time when being critical of a GM – any GM – would lead to so much angst and gnashing of the teeth. It’s actually quite a phenomenon for those who have been tuned into the Mets since the early seventies.

I recently said a few things about Sandy Alderson on this site that has led to a flurry of angry emails to my inbox, Angry Birds on my Twitter feed and even running into comments about it on other sites:

  • Why doesn’t Sandy Alderson just use the “R” word and quit the charade?
  • Sandy Alderson is now the face of the franchise…
  • Alderson has taken a page out of Billy Beane’s playbook for 2012…
  • If you’re not punting the 2012 season, prove it…
  • If Reyes is the No. 1 priority, why doesn’t it feel like it?

I’ve posted titles like that in the last two months…

Is there anything outlandish there –  are they not all legitimate concerns or obvious observations?

Are none of those items worthy of a debate or discussion?

It seems like 95% of the blogs out there these days have become too vanilla, but I’ve always been a rocky road type of guy and I enjoy playing Devil’s advocate and stirring the pot. Why should I stop doing that now?

I have nothing against Mets fans who want to hold hands and sing a rousing rendition of Kumbaya, but while they do that, shouldn’t somebody be looking at the flip side of things?

Is there something wrong with holding a GM or anyone accountable for what they say in public as compared to what their actions say? Am I a Mets hater for simply pointing that out whenever it occurs?

I’m really interested in your opinions on this matter.

Why is it suddenly taboo for a Mets blogger to shake a tree and see what falls out of it?

I always found that the best blogs were the ones that did that.

I don’t need a blog to tell me what I can already get on or for myself. I want to talk about the range of ideas and opinions that you’ll never get at those two outlets because ultimately that’s what makes us more informed and engaged as Mets fans.

There’s two sides to every story and then there’s the truth. The truth is pretty hard to nail down with the Mets these days, and while the 99% go with one side of the story, I prefer to chill out with the other 1% who look at things from a different perspective if only to bring more depth to our content here on MMO.

If you’re not going to engage and encourage debate on your site, why have a site in the first place?

Questioning the state of the Mets, their moves and their motivations, doesn’t make me a Mets hater…. It makes me what I’ve always been – a dedicated Mets fanatic.

So I like stirring the pot a little, so what?

About Joe D 7944 Articles
I'm a lifelong Mets fan who loves writing and talking about the Amazins' 24/7. From the Miracle in 1969 to the magic of 1986, and even the near misses in '73, '00 and '15, I've experienced it all - the highs and the lows. I started Mets Merized Online in 2005 to feed my addiction and interact with other passionate Met fans like you. Follow me on Twitter @metsmerized.