Comments on: amLinks: Released, WNBC, Niese and Q’s http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/27/amlinks-released-wnbc-niese-and-qs/ Latest Mets News, Links, Rumors and Opinion Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Slob http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/27/amlinks-released-wnbc-niese-and-qs/#comment-118067 Slob Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:43:58 +0000 http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/27/amlinks-released-wnbc-niese-and-qs/#comment-118067 Shame on John Delcos. Shame on John Delcos.

]]> By: farb09 http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/27/amlinks-released-wnbc-niese-and-qs/#comment-118011 farb09 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:23 +0000 http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/27/amlinks-released-wnbc-niese-and-qs/#comment-118011 Delcos doesn't actually answer his own questions at all. He says of Sanchez's return, "There's no guarantee how effective he'll be." He says of Pedro's health, "Martinez had no problems physically during spring training." He informs us that Carlos Delgado "bears watching." So great job, John Delcos. Thanks for lobbing yourself five softball questions, then not answering them, and in the process rehashing everything we already knew about the Mets. If you're asking questions involving the word "will," then you're implying that the answer will be a prediction. Instead of hedging your bets with phrases like "bears watching," grow a pair and predict something. The answer to what will they get out of pedro should be "15-8, 3.25," or "3-7, 5.02" or something like that, not, "well he could be good or he could be unhealthy and they're hoping for 27 starts but he might pitch less or he might pitch more and so far so good but who really knows?" I really hate sports writers. I can't wait for John Heyman to cite his next anonymous source so I can criticize him for it. Delcos doesn’t actually answer his own questions at all. He says of Sanchez’s return, “There’s no guarantee how effective he’ll be.” He says of Pedro’s health, “Martinez had no problems physically during spring training.” He informs us that Carlos Delgado “bears watching.” So great job, John Delcos. Thanks for lobbing yourself five softball questions, then not answering them, and in the process rehashing everything we already knew about the Mets. If you’re asking questions involving the word “will,” then you’re implying that the answer will be a prediction. Instead of hedging your bets with phrases like “bears watching,” grow a pair and predict something. The answer to what will they get out of pedro should be “15-8, 3.25,” or “3-7, 5.02″ or something like that, not, “well he could be good or he could be unhealthy and they’re hoping for 27 starts but he might pitch less or he might pitch more and so far so good but who really knows?”

I really hate sports writers. I can’t wait for John Heyman to cite his next anonymous source so I can criticize him for it.

]]>