High 5 wrote:I never said the Mets "always collapse." My post is only wrong if you're statisfied with:
1) being tied for 3rd place in the division
2) losing the NLCS when you're the favorites
3) having one of the worst collapses in MLB history
Considering the encounters I have had with Mets fans at Turner Field in recent seasons, I doubt I'm wrong.
High 5 wrote:Wow. Even when I break it down enough for a 3 year old to comprehend you still don't understand it. Nothing much more I can do. Read over my posts a few times and see if anything clicks.

5,
I thought I covered this, but since you can't seem to comprehend, I'll try again.
2005 was a 13 game improvement over 2004. Given a string of losing seasons and given that 2005 was a rebuilding year with a rookie SS, rookie 3rd baseman and a shaky rotation with no closer - yes, I was more than happy with tied for 3rd.
2006 - there's 2 ways to look at loosing a close 7 game NL Championship series, for a young team with numerous injuries. You can say "we were favored", but since we didn't have Pedro or El Duque - 2 of our top 3 starters that year, I don't agree with your opinion that this was something to be disapointed in.
2007 - no comment.
but you need to stop dragging 3 seasons into one horrible end to 1 season.
Unless your point is something so vague as "you didn't win the series, ha ha", then you are wrong. The mets had respectible seasons that I was happy with in both 05 and 06. Now, was I disaopinted that we lost the NLCS - sure, but, dude, by that logic, 29 teams are disapointed every year, and braves are not one to talk when we ask how many world series they've won recently - and how many they were favored to win.
I understand your point, but I think you are being ridiculous.
Bill Clinton slept with an intern. A consenting adult and he got impeached and nearly disbarred as a result. Donald Trump went to parties showcasing underaged women brought in as basically prostitutes, and he says it's nothing.
Double standard?