Benjamin Grimm

McMillan would be a player-manager for the M's. The C's will have to be skippered by Mike Cubbage.

Each of the above teams can have alphabetically appropriate managers, too. The H's have three to choose from: Howe, Howard, and Harrelson. (Slim pickings, though. I'd probably go with Big Frank.)

Grassy Knoll?

There were a LOT of giant icky bugs, but I don't recall any spiders. I was too grossed out by the giant leeches.

Saw it. Loved it. Voted seven bananas. (I have a few quibbles which keep me from going for that last banana.)

The first guy was him. The second one wasn't.

Yes. I'm tempted to post his real e-mail address, but that would be an abuse of my admin rights.

I found this website in the UMDB referrer logs. It's all about hating Mets players.

I've always wondered that myself. I don't know the answer.

If I have this figured right (and I may not) Reyes will be eligible for arbitration in 2007, 08, and 09, and can be a free agent after the 2009 season.

Me neither. Even if his OBP never improves, (and it probably won't by a whole lot) he's still a far better player than Ordonez ever was. His future may not be as a leadoff hitter, but if he's ever demoted in the lineup (and replaced with a better leadoff guy) he'd be one of the better 8th-place hitters in the game. I've seen the Mets with so many easy outs in the 8th spot that I'd really appreciate a guy like Reyes there.

That's how I feel about Fay Wray. I read recently that Fay was going to do a cameo at the end of the new version; she was going to deliver the famous closing line. "It wasn't the planes that killed him. Twas beauty killed the beast." She died, though, before she could shoot the scene. That would have been very cool.

That was great. Thanks, Steve, for dropping by. We enjoyed the visit.

I re-read the questions and it looks like these three are the ones for which there are no answers. Lucky me, two of the three are mine! Yancy Street Gang asks: When you and Tim joined the broadcast team in 1983, you brought a new style to the telecasts. Ralph did eventually get with the program, but can you comment on how easily he made the adjustment? Did he have any initial difficulties at first? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yancy Street Gang asks: Hi, Steve, and thanks for joining us. I've noticed in the national telecasts that former athletes never seem to be permitted to do the play-by-play, they only do "color." I know that on Mets broadcasts, however, former players like Kiner and McCarver often did play-by-play. One thing I don't remember though, is if you ever did color while Tim or Ralph did play-by-play. What do you think of that division between color and play-by-play based on the announcer's prior background? Did you find one role more challenging, or more enjoyable, than the other? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Centerfield asks: Hi Steve, when doing play by play? Do you watch the monitor for pitch location/selection? How about on potential Home Runs? Do you know by the way it leaves the bat or do you watch the outfielder?

He's sure throwing a lot of money around for someone who doesn't want to pay guys. You may say he's cheap, but he's much better than Lorinda de Roulet.

I don't think the Mets are unique in this way. The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Some teams never have this problem because they never agree to pay anybody a big contract.

Now that's a big splash.

Hi, Steve, and thanks for joining us. I've noticed in the national telecasts that former athletes never seem to be permitted to do the play-by-play, they only do "color." I know that on Mets broadcasts, however, former players like Kiner and McCarver often did play-by-play. One thing I don't remember though, is if you ever did color while Tim or Ralph did play-by-play. What do you think of that division between color and play-by-play based on the announcer's prior background? Did you find one role more challenging, or more enjoyable, than the other?

I remember my disbelief when Ordonez got that contract. Again, the conventional wisdom, such as it was, was that the Mets were a year away from signing Alex Rodriguez as a free agent. My fear was that a commitment to Ordonez meant a lack of interest in Rodriguez. Then some of the sportswriters/analysts speculated that the deal made Ordonez more tradable, because other teams would like the cost-certainty that came with Rey's guaranteed contract. That seemed like an odd argument at the time. I couldn't see how dramatically overpaying somebody for four years makes them marketable, but I hoped that there was at least one other team out there that saw things that way. What I now wonder is if that's really what Phillips was thinking: that signing Rey would make him a valuable trade chip once Rodriguez was signed. I have my doubts about that. And anyway, if that was the plan, it obviously didn't work out.

Also, they were winning with Rey. Almost a wild card in 1998, NLCS in 1999. I can see them continuing to put him out there as long as he was the best they had. What the Mets could've and should've done was import another shortstop who was better. They didn't even try to do that until Rey was injured during the 2000 season. Maybe they would have gone further in 1998 and 1999 if they had benched Ordonez (despite his salary) and brought in someone better.

I remember thinking the same thing about George Foster way back when. He stayed in the lineup longer than he would have if his salary was lower.

I was also glad to get Bordick, although the word "savior" never crossed my mind. I had really grown to dislike Rey Ordonez, and was happy to get a veteran to bridge the gap between Rey and Alex Rodriguez, who everyone just knew would be a Met in 2001. I also preferred the Bordick deal to the attempted trade for Barry Larkin, because I was more willing to give up Melvin Mora than Alex Escobar. It goes to show you never can tell.

This was in The Daily News this morning. In some parts, it reads as if it were written by an 11-year-old. Here's a blast from the past - an excerpt of the Daily News' three-star review of the original "King Kong," reprinted from March 1933. BY IRENE THIRER 'King Kong," as spectacular a bolt of celluloid as has thrilled movie audiences in a couple of sophisticated seasons, is the product of a number of vivid imaginations. The late Edgar Wallace and Merian C. Cooper conceived the idea. James Creelman and Ruth Rose elaborated on it in the screen treatment. Ernest B. Schoedsack, who always works with Cooper on adventure films, contributed suggestions. And David O. Selznick, as executive producer, spoke his say. Yesterday's crowded houses at Radio City were held thoroughly engrossed. No hysterical screams were heard, however. The folks took "King Kong" good-naturedly. They often guffawed with sheer delight at the exciting, preposterous situations. And yet we've got to admit there's a tenseness about "King Kong" which defies you to glance away from the screen. The human cast takes direction well. But the chief role is essayed by the 65-foot prehistoric monster gorilla, constructed by RKO mechanical experts. He's encountered in the forests of a far-off island, worshiped by frenzied, painted natives. The reason Robert Armstrong, Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot come in contact with King Kong is that Armstrong portrays a director renowned for the thrill films he brings back from the jungles of the world. He employs Ann Redman [sic] (Miss Wray) as star of the movie. Driscoll (Cabot) is the first mate on the boat which conveys the cinema party to the island. The savage natives capture Ann and offer her as a golden-haired sacrifice to the great King Kong. He lifts her between two fingers, waves her to and fro, never really harms her, but causes the poor gal to shriek with terror. Don't know how she manages to be as brave as she is. We'd have passed out from dread of the horrible monster! With the aid of gas bombs, the ship's crew dazes Kong, chains him and takes him back to New York to be exhibited. Disaster! King Kong breaks loose! Kong grabs the beauteous Ann and reaches the top of the Empire State Building. You don't for one minute have the feeling that there's anything real about "King Kong," but you're constantly entertained. When you leave Radio City, you know you've had a mighty good time! Photographically, by the way, "King Kong" is super-excellent!

I have never, ever, even when I was a kid, been so eager to see a movie as I am this one. I want to see it on Wednesday morning, but I think it'll either be Friday evening or some time on Sunday before I'm able to. I think the movie will give me three hours of goosebumps. Is it possible to overdose on goosebumps? Is there any medication I should take before the movie starts?

seawolf17 wrote: I think Edgy's suspicious. I think I am too. Well, I can verify that the Frank Thomas user name is registered under the e-mail address of the person with whom I've been corresponding. Because of that correspondence, I received a copy of Frank Thomas' book in my mailbox. If he is an imposter, he's gone to extraordinary lengths to fool us.