Are The New York Mets Losers?

No, they play arguably the hardest division, with the Phillies, who are just plain good (unfortunately), the Marlins who are always a hard team to beat, and the Braves who, like it or not, are always there. Oh, and then there are the Nats who only win when it counts for the other team. They have good talent, just one thing always seems to fail, usually at least partially due to injury. The only time it wasn't was in '06 when the Cardinals just beat them fair and Square. In my opinion, as long as they're playing at least .500 ball, no team can be called losers.

They were in a World Series this decade that's still not over. They've also been in three out of the last ten NLCS' so I'd have to disagree. They've had tough luck. Some people would think it's more appropriate to brand them chokers which is currently true, but they still have as high of potential as any postseason caliber team. I'd say their problem is they lack leadership and toughness. I can't say the Mets played as a team this year. They didn't have it in '07 or '08. They had enough to make the postseason, but not enough to win it all. However, in '06 they did.

The Mets hitting ranked 3rd in the NL. They led in 1st inning runs. They ranked among the top of the league in quality starts. They have arguably the best pitcher (Johan Santana) in all of baseball. The Mets bullpen dragged this team down like a sprinter running with a stone tied to their ankle. The New York Mets blew 29 saves. 11 in the 9th inning. 18 before it. How many teams out there can tell you that they were in position to win 100 games going into the 9th inning? If the Mets had just had a mediocre bullpen, they would have won well over 100 games. I blame this on Omar Minaya for doing nothing. He made no trades. He just let the rest of the team rot. The only move he made was acquiring an overworked Nats reliever who had a 5.71 ERA which isn't saying much.

Do you know how many teams out there have been through so much and than come around to do it? Look at how heart breaking the game seven loss of the '03 ALCS was to the Red Sox. They were winning 5-0 late in the game and Little took out Pedro. The Yankees came back on Boone's home run. The next year they're down 3-0. And they come all the way back. It's not like there's one dominant team in baseball that people know will win it. Look at how many people were predicting the Cubs & Angels a month ago.

You're right that the '04 Mets sucked. That was before this Minaya/Randolph/Manuel era began though. They suck all three years between '02 & '04. Losers would be the Pirates or the Royals. Pittsburgh has had a losing record every year since 1992. However, the Rays were regarded similarly only seven months ago so anyone can change that in just a year. I think the Mets are easily the most exciting team to watch in baseball. Much more than the Yankees. The only team that'd beat them out is Tampa. And Philly would come close. The Phillies-Mets rivalry has really turned into one of the best in all of baseball and doesn't look like it's going away soon.

The Mets need to get younger. I saw someone mention that the Mets weren't hampered by injuries in '06. This is everything but true. Had the Mets had Pedro who was really good at the point or El Duque who's a big postseason pitcher on their NLCS roster, they would have probably won. Losing Cliff Floyd really hurt too. The Mets need to gey younger and get a leader. like Aaron Rowand who they can probably swap Castillo for to save the Giants loads of cash. If the Mets sign K-Rod and signing one or two good set-up men like Joe Beimel and Juan Cruz, they'll be really dangerous next season. So don't be shocked if the Mets somehow make and win the World Series next season. Anything can happen. 8 teams have been there in 4 years.

Much of the Mets disaster has ran parallel to the Phillies momentum. In both of the last two seasons, the Phillies went 13-4 in their last 17. Last season, the Mets went 5-12 with a 7 game lead. This year they went 7-10 with a 3 1/2 game lead. Had the Mets gone 10-7, they would have clinched the division being that both NYM & PHI would have been in the postseason and the Mets had a better head-to-head record. All the Mets had to do was go 7-10 last year & 10-7 this season could have made them back-to-back-to back NL East Champions. Overall a combined 17-17 record would have done this which is kind of sad. I honestly don't believe the Phillies are all that much better either because if they were they would have played better throughout both seasons.

Something still tells me the Phillies will lose. And they won't be there again for another 15 years. I don't here many people talking about the 2000 Subway Series from the Mets perspective anymore, so if the Phillies lose this whole season will be worthless. The only thing it'd do is depress people and prevent their city from being burnt down.

No. Disappointing? Underperformers? Yes. Losers? Losers don't finish with a better than .500 record.

It's sucked the last couple of years, yes, but I'll continue to root for them.

Over the last 3 years, the Mets have become a relavant franchise, however they tend to break down in stretches in a season, just like how it was predicted, but I don't think they suck as much as the Nationals. The Mets, in my opinion, still a slightly formidable team.

Chokers? Yes, definatley

Losers? I don't know if I would go that far (statistics wise, yes. at the end of the season they are losers)

No I think teams just go through tough stretches. I mean all teams are hot and cold during the season and they have had their slumps at the wrong time.

They're not losers, but they just always fall short of a trip to the playoffs.

LOSERS, they are losers they choke under pressure, they should've made the playoffs this year and last year, but they keep choking.

The bats went cold & the bullpen was wild.

I wouldn't call them losers but what about chokers?