Skip to content

The Mets accuse R.A. Dickey of “becoming too absorbed with his new celebrity”

Dec 12, 2012, 4:44 PM EST

R.A. Dickey Getty Images

We’ve noted all the back and forth between R.A. Dickey and the Mets. It’s a hard negotiation. The part that tickles me the most is where, yesterday, the Mets made it clear that they were not pleased by Dickey going after the Mets in the press. Because they’d never do that, right?

The Mets, meanwhile, have mounting concerns whether all of Dickey’s off-the-field endeavors could impact his on-field results or his standing in the clubhouse if the perception is that he has become too absorbed with his new celebrity.

Congratulations, Mets: not only are you trashing your own player — the most popular one on the team, mind you — but you’re just friggin’ wrong about it.

Because while, yes, Dickey has been in the news a lot lately, it’s not like he’s out there attention whoring and becoming a diva or anything. Unless you count doing things like raising awareness of child sexual abuse as him becoming “absorbed with his new celebrity.”

Hey Mets: because Dickey is 38 and because he still has a year on his contract at a low rate, you have the advantage in the actual negotiation.  But you’re not going to win the P.R. war with Dickey, guys, and you have no reason whatsoever to get involved in one, so cut it out.

  1. hammyofdoom - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

    How… Mets of them. They are not only making one of their best players not want to resign with them when he apparently could be had for not a large sum, but they are also looking like total dicks in public due to only their own words. Congrats, you’ve become a parody of yourself, here’s a cookie

    • thebadguyswon - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

      Its not a legitimate source. Its speculation by the biggest tabloid in New York that Craig is spinning off as real.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM

        Yeah, because you’re not at all invested in one side of this.

        Or am I wrong in remembering you defending the Wilpons last year as if your life depended on it?

      • Old Gator - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:55 PM

        Any speculation that contributes to liberating R A Dickey to pitch for a baseball team that is not run by a bunch of impoverished cretins is all to the good.

      • mrwillie - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM

        We heard ya the first time you said that on this article….and the last time….and the time before that.

      • forsch31 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

        To be perfectly blunt, Craig, attempting to discredit the source of the criticism doesn’t change the fact that you’re taking the unsourced word of the New York Post as gospel and treating it as a direct public statement by the Mets. Not to mention that the passage you quoted is clearly the reporters’ perspective on the situation, and not anything the Mets organization has told them.

        For somebody who criticizes baseball writers’ logic and journalistic ethics on a weekly basis, you’re working in a glass house.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:35 PM

        So you think the Post is simply making this up from whole cloth?

      • Gobias Industries - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:42 PM

        I don’t know about the “legitimate source” stuff. But you’re definitely spinning it, Craig. Here’s the quote: “The Mets…have mounting concerns whether all of Dickey’s off-the-field endeavors could impact…his standing in the clubhouse if the perception is that he has become too absorbed with his new celebrity.” Nobody called him a diva. Instead – right or wrong – they’re concerned that his TEAMMATES are going to THINK he’s become a diva. So how does that lead to the title of this post: The Mets accuse R.A. Dickey of “becoming too absorbed with his new celebrity”

        (For the record, I hate the Wilpons as much as the next Mets fan.)

      • protius - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM

        Mr. C:

        According to Aristotle: There is a kernel of truth in every myth.

        The Post my not be making this story up from whole cloth, but they may be exaggerating it out of a sample swatch. For example: A casual conversation between a Post reporter and R.A. Dickey, may have produced an off the cuff remark that was misinterpreted, or exaggerated.

      • sabatimus - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

        Even if it’s not real, it sure wouldn’t surprise me.

      • jolink653 - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM

        “So you think the Post is simply making this up from whole cloth?”

        You obviously have not read much of the Post if you think they’re above making stories up to get people to read it…The Post is one of the worst papers in history because all they print is tabloid garbage and very rarely do they actually provide well-written/factual articles

    • recoveringcubsfan - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM

      What an easy situation to pick sides in. I mean, who’s going to take the Mets’s side over the Dickster? Ohhh, right: thebadguyswon. D’oh!

      I’m with Dick(ey)!

  2. vallewho - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    The Mets are too absorbed in remaining a crappy team.

  3. thebadguyswon - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM

    NY Post again, eh Craig?

    Get a real source to support your homerism.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM

      Trusting the Post in saying that the Mets are trashing Dickey would be like believing the National Enquirer claiming John Edwards fathered a love child.

      When all esle fails shoot the messenger.

    • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM

      I think it would not be homerism then, no?

    • professormaddog31 - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM

      I’m not sure where you can call CC a homer when that’s not his team and it’s not his city. If anything, he’s a homer for the ATL, not the NYM.

  4. Old Gator - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM

    The Mutts are a bunch of despicable elfists.

    • chill1184 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      This is funny from an old goat who roots for the minnows

      • Old Gator - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM

        I may be old, but I would never stoop to playing the elf card.

    • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM

      It’s like some people *want* to get on the naughty list.

  5. kkolchak - Dec 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    That is simply idiotic. If you were to ask me to make a list of the top attention whores in sports, I would get well down into the triple digits before I got to Dickey.

  6. chill1184 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM

    FU Wilpon and your penny pinching bullshit

  7. thebadguyswon - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Not a Wilpon defender…just got a bit old after your 75th post about it. Just like this year with Bobby V. And now you’re reaching with this story – which while there are hard feelings – nowhere did the Mets EVER say what the Post (and you) are accusing them of. Find a Mets source that said that.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      So you’re saying that the Post made this story up from whole cloth? That’s your position? Just want to be sure, because if you’re just choosing not to believe it when they report something you don’t like about your team, we have nothing further to discuss.

      • Dan the Mets Fan - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

        I’m also anti-Wilpon and I think there is no doubt that they trash their players in the press. However, Craig, you are way off base with your headline here. The reporter Joel Sherman never says he spoke with a Mets official – it sounds like he is responding to reports earlier this week that were based on comments from Mets official. Even if Sherman did talk with someone from this article, your headline is grossly inaccurate. Using the quotes the way you do strongly implies that a Mets official used that phrase. It’s pretty clear from reading Sherman’s report that he came up with that phrasing himself based on HIS read of what he is hearing from the Mets.

        So bottom line, the sentiment of your post here that the Mets management is acting like a-holes is correct. However, your headline is a pile of garbage. Frankly, as a Mets fan, it pisses me off that the Mets are behaving the way they are, but I would be way more pissed off if an official literally told a reporter “R.A. Dickey is becoming too absorbed with his new celebrity.” It’s a whole different level of escalation than saying they were annoyed that he talked to reporters at their Christmas event, which is basically what they have told Mets beat reporters at this point.

      • Dan the Mets Fan - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

        In fact, to add to that, the phrase Sherman uses is “if the perception is that he has become too absorbed with his new celebrity.” In that sentence, “if” indicates that it may or may not be possible that the Mets perceive he has become too absorbed with his new celebrity. Which is a far cry from the management literally accusing him of becoming too absorbed with his new celebrity.

      • thebadguyswon - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

        I am saying the Post is sensationalizing.

      • wrg885 - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

        Come on, Craig.

        Hardball Times? Remember? I don’t comment much here but this blogging……mess? Craig?? Craig?!?

        Shame on you.
        McCourt
        Wilpon
        NBC
        Gator (Get you own damn blog-people WILL follow.)

      • sabatimus - Dec 12, 2012 at 9:27 PM

        In my history reading Craig’s articles, I have had little cause to call him out on something. This, however, is cause. Dan the Mets Fan is 100% correct and said it so well that I can’t offer any more insight.

  8. stex52 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Yay, guys! Way to poison the well! My kneejerk response since 1986 has been to hate the Mets. (Reinforced by the Beltran negotiation in 2004).

    But everytime I think it’s time to back down they validate my previous opinion.

  9. cur68 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM

    That’s it Mets! Piss him off! Sour your relationship with your best pitcher, one of the best stories in MLB this season (or last season, or whatever the eff it was). Now, when you trade him, you can cite his “lack of team effort and focus” and what a “selfish diva he was”. Because guys that win the Cy Young, throw the most difficult pitch in baseball, win an assload of games for you and climb mountains for charity are SUCH media whores.

    Tell ya what: since he’s such a toxic presence there in New York, ship him out of the country. Send him to Beaverleand! Make him play as a hired Beaver Gun and in exchange you can have Colby Rasmus, Travis D’Arnaud and Eli Whiteside. Hell, take a bag of balls and some maple syrup while your at it, Mets. C’mon! You know you want to. I’m hip to what you’re up to. You just don’t want to be seen as the guys who shipped out the team’s best player. That’s why your making up all this bogus shit. Its gotta be HIS fault, right?

    • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

      You still won’t get him.

      • cur68 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

        Yeah, prolly not. But any chance to point out what ass burgers the Mets FO are shouldn’t be passed up. See Eli Whiteside got shipped out? Claimed off waivers by the Rangers. There goes one more poker chip in the Texas Hold ‘Em game known as “Trade for RA Dickey”.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM

        I have heard unconfirmed rumors that the Wilpons met with him and offered him pie.

        And Ranger Dickey is laughable.

      • cur68 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

        RA is a cake man. There’s just no doubt about it. Anyone can see that. If the Mets really are trying to lure him with that foul stuff he’ll be turning them down a lot.

    • stex52 - Dec 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

      Cur, I’ll root for him to be a beave. Shakke up the AL and NL east. Why not? He won’t come to Texas.

      • indaburg - Dec 12, 2012 at 10:17 PM

        No, no, no, Stex, are you mad? I will not allow this to happen. He basically no hit the Rays last season. Dickey must not leave the NL. Don’t the Dodgers need a 23rd starter? Or is it 24th? I’ve lost count.

        The Mets will extend his contract. Extending his contract at a below market rate would actually increase his trade value. If they choose to keep him, they’ll recoup their investment. It’s a no brainer. Then again, these are the Mets were talking about.

      • indaburg - Dec 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM

        *we’re, not were. I type faster than I think.

  10. bcjim - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM

    He’s a 38 yo one hit wonder. If he wants too much, ax him.

    • fissels - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

      If I were R.A. I’d be happy to go elsewhere

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM

      Since he’s joined the Mets he’s thrown:

      616 IP at 2.95 ERA with a 6.8 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9 (3.12 K/BB ratio). If that’s a one-hit wonder, you must have really high standards.

  11. ikedavisnose - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:17 PM

    Umm Craig your link does not work anymore

  12. El Bravo - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM

    Mets or Marlins? Who’s current front office is shittier? GO! Show your work please.

    • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      Poor McCourt. So soon forgotten.

      • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

        Not totally…I did put his wife on my 2012 douchnozzle list (see ESPN ranking post comments) and both were on it last year. Just keepin’ it current is all.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

        I saw that. I still think listing the wife only this year was unfair. I think it likely that both McCourts are still absorbed with their old celebrity.

    • Old Gator - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM

      Feesh are worse, hands down. The Mutts would overpay everyone if they still could.

      On the other hand, the Feesh haven’t succumbed to elfism – well, they can hardly afford to, what with an elf as team president.

    • Gobias Industries - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

      The Marlins front office brutally murdered my adorable puppy.

      The Mets front office introduced me to my wife.

      The Mets front office is worse.

      Zing.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM

        BTW, I really hate your angry toothbrushing commercial.

  13. pandaaa69 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

    hey jackass David wright is the most popular, and Dickey should be thankful that they gave him an opportunity to play he’s 38 like you said I agree that its disrespectful for them to call him a celebrity because of his past.But when you put your bussiness out there that’s what you’re going to get in the end, this was a fluke year and nothing more

    • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:45 PM

      Lame. If you are a Mutts fan, you clearly don’t deserve him. How you can write this off as a fluke is beyond me…let me help you reconsider:

      http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/r-a-dickey-and-the-myth-of-one-great-year/

      • richyballgame - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM

        Dickey’s season was anything but a fluke,3 great seasons.

      • professormaddog31 - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM

        The Mets fans that I am friendly with stood in line for hours to meet R.A. Dickey. They wouldn’t think of standing in line half that long to meet David Wright. They love Davey, but they love Dickey.

        Right now, Robert Allen is the King of New York. At least in the National League.

  14. legacybroken - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    Im not sure who is worse Scrooge McLoria or the Wilpons.

    • Old Gator - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:19 AM

      Then you haven’t been paying attention. The Wilpons are terminal bunglers. Scrooge McLoria is a terminal SOB – and the Wilpons have nothing at the end of their leashes to equal Scrooge’s rabid little Chihuahua. Think of him as a stunted velociraptor with no teeth and a bad case of nail fungus.

  15. richyballgame - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    I feel like this is a slap to the face of all the fans who believed in him during the season,and were rooting for him 3 years ago… Way to blow things up,Coupons.

  16. giantboy99 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

    Mark Cuban should buy the Mets

    • Old Gator - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM

      Mark Cuban should be Commissioner of Baseball. It’d be a hoot to watch him fine himself.

  17. Jonny 5 - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

    This isn’t “too” transparent at all, noooo. Now the Mutts will be forced to trade him for some young talent. Young cheaper talent. That they can afford.

  18. randygnyc - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

    BUSH LEAGUE!!!

  19. coryfor3 - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    The Mets are a joke. Sell the team and put everyone out of their misery.

  20. jlilly67 - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM

    Typical Willons

  21. mazblast - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:50 PM

    I’m not trying to say the players are in any way comparable, but the Wilpons’ treatment of Dickey is starting to remind me of The Great M. Donald Grant Himself c. 1977 getting his panties in a wad when Tom Seaver wanted the team to be made competitive.

  22. lilrock9 - Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    They will always be a second rate organization. Bombers for life!!!!!!!!!

  23. byjiminy - Dec 12, 2012 at 10:31 PM

    The Kansas City Royals shelled out $25 million for a three year contract for Jeremy Guthrie.

    That’s also the current offer of the N.Y. Mets to the reigning Cy Young award winner.

    ’nuff said?

    • mlenenski - Dec 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM

      And if the Royals stepped up and offer Dickey the same money, he would be crazy not to take it! He’s a knuckleballer! He could pitch until he is 45!

  24. cameltoews - Dec 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM

    Stop saying whole cloth you moron

    • Old Gator - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:21 AM

      Yeah, everything is cut with polyester these days.

  25. bjbeliever - Dec 12, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    the mets are a disaster, Wilpons need to sell

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (4870)
  2. M. Kemp (3449)
  3. J. Upton (2531)
  4. J. Kang (2503)
  5. W. Middlebrooks (2483)
  1. C. McGehee (2460)
  2. M. Morse (2350)
  3. A. Rios (2234)
  4. C. Headley (2146)
  5. J. Peavy (1883)