Frayed Knot

Dave Howard also went on the air claiming that there were no 'obstructed view' seats at CF (even after photographs and eye-witnesses said otherwise) but did admit that there were instead some seats with 'limited sight' - as if there were actually a distinction between the two other than just pr bullshit. Not that that subject is the same as the lack of identification topic I was discussing earlier, but trying to talk their way out of that one shirley didn't help make their case that: 'oh yeah, we planned all along to put up a NYM HoF and memorabilia , er, ... and we're going to do it just as soon as we get around to it and we'll even let you know where it's going to be, umm ... soon'

Edgy DC wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: ...when the wall of complaints started hitting last year, it became pretty obvious that ownership and those surrounding it never considered doing much to hi-light NYM history and, as a result, were totally blind-sided by it all. If it's fair to ask, what specifically made this so obvious? By them seeming so blind-sided to the fact that there even were complaints, - or that even as they put on their best after-the-fact claim to have had these things in mind all along (like a NYM HoF) they still had no answers as to when they might surface or even where they might be put, - or that they designed and supervised a stadium from scratch that not only didn't set aside room for such mementos but even somehow managed to barely acknowledge team colors and logos And I'm not even one who believes that ol' Freddie is sitting around trying to re-make the Mets into some modern-day version of the Dodgers that he still pines for. But they do tend to give the impression of owners most interested in what will sell tickets in the here and now (We've got Reyes & Wright and [insert name] our new FA!!) with very little thought as to the history of the team - particularly as to that part of the history which pre-dates their buying into the team or even prior to the era of Wilpon majority ownership. All that said, I'm have no intention of continually harping on this and acknowledge that they're doing a good job in "fixing" things. I just wish they'd realize things on their own a bit more often without having to be shamed or cajoled into it.

Sure there are some specifics that couldn't have been done on day one but, when the wall of complaints started hitting last year, it became pretty obvious that ownership and those surrounding it never considered doing much to hi-light NYM history and, as a result, were totally blind-sided by it all. There would have been few if any complaints about the JR-42 exhibit, for instance, had it been done in addition to NYM stuff rather than, seemingly, instead of. But they didn't and therefore it merely served to perpetuate the idea that Fred cares more about his long-lost Dodgers than about his current team. So, yeah, I think public pressure did have a lot to do with it, which isn't by itself a bad thing and the fact that they're doing it now is good on them - at least in a better late than never way. It all just kind of reinforced the aura of marketing cluelessness that hangs around that crew too often.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: How hard was that? To do? ... not very. Ah, but to think of !! ... now that takes a bit more initiative.

... except possibly Martinez, and I'm not sure what he has to do to get a spot either. Stay healthy and show he can do what he doing in ST for a few months in a row. Remember that this is a guy who did get 100 ML ABs last year and hit a mostly punchless .176 ... before getting hurt again - and in 4 years of pro ball has had barely 2 full seasons worth of reps (1,100 ABs) due to being sidelined with one problem after another. 2 dozen or so ST ABs doesn't wipe all of that out. Plus there's the snag where the one "open" position right now is CF and that's not only temporary (we hope) but it's the one spot where they're not really sure he can play.

soupcan wrote: soupcan wrote: Like 'Blackhawk Down' you really get a sense of the chaos and fear that must exist in Iraq. Unlike 'Blackhawk', however, this one doesn't seem to want to turn war into a music video. Very different IMO and MUCH better. 'Blackhawk' had its flaws but I thought it was very successful in relating the tense, chaotic environmemt of an urban war. That was the basis of my comparison. Obviously there were similarities. I just thought Blackhawk created its tension in a much more style-over-substance, video-gamey kind of way as opposed to the more human approach in HL. Seems to me that I had forgotten almost all of what happened during Blackhawk shortly after the movie was over.

I like to stick to the same team for a whole year and seeing as how both Cubs series look to be still open so I'll take those for now. If there's holes in the sked I'll grab some more later after everyone else has had a crack ... or taken some crack ... or had their head cracked.

TransMonk wrote: In my mind's eye, the Runaways movie I would want to see would be cast with a group of unknown teenage actresses who are preferably punk-rawkish and hopefully, genuinely love the Runaways. Yeah, that's kind of why I threw out Lavigne's name (or someone in her vein); the idea where you cast musicians and hope they can act rather than having actresses play as musicians. It worked in 'The Commitments'

I guess I don't share the same affinity for her part in Adventureland that others on this board have. I thought she made a pretty bad movie worse. I don't think she particularly looks like Joan Jett and she was born a decade after the Runaways were even around. Well I liked 'Adventureland' so I guess we're not going to agree there. And by 'looks like Joan Jett' I merely meant that she's the right age plus the thin, dark-haired type that gives here a leg up on most run of the mill actresses - and as opposed to trying to shoe-horn some total non-J.J. looker into the role. C'mon, admit it, you could see them trying to sell you: And, as Joan Jett; Drew Barrymore!! I am of the opinion that the only reason she (and Dakota Fanning) are in this movie is to sell it to teens. Which is fine...it's the Hollywood way. But I'm not expecting any notable performances from the cast. I'm sure the costumes, makeup and, of course, the music will be great. Sure, but you're going to have to use some teen (or near teen) actress so it's either going to be her, or someone like her, or some chancy unknown, the last of which lessens the odds that the movie ever gets made. (new thought: stick a black wig on Avril Lavigne) And don't get me wrong, I could totally see them blowing this up by aiming for the teen crowd with a slightly edgier 'Josie and the Pussycats / GRRLL POWER' kind of flick. I just don't see her presence specifically as making that any more likely to happen.

It's a bit confusing , perhaps it's my reading comprehension but he seems to be saying that Martinez is not ready to be a center fielder. Scouts have generally leaned toward the notion all along that Martinez was never destined to be a true CFer. Because of his (young at every level) age there's always the possibility that he could grow into one but minor league OFs (and IFers for that matter) tend to move towards the corners as they age and the competition gets tougher rather than the other way around. So when you stack his lack of true CF instincts onto his mediocre foot speed and overall dearth of experience at the position and you've got just part of the stack of reasons why he shouldn't be the temp CF replacement for the opening month.

sharpie wrote: That wouldn't be the first time I've been to a depicted concert as I was at the final Sex Pistols show in San Francisco which is depicted in "Sid and Nancy" but there was no Movie Me, all band shots. Some directors just don't know what's important. TransMonk wrote: Kristen Stewart? Ugh. I dunno, they could do worse. At least she'll be an actual teenager (turns 20 in a few months) playing an actual teenager - as opposed to the usual Hollywood fare of having 28 year-olds play teenagers - not to mention looking reasonably like the J.J. part even before getting to the make-up & wardrobe stage. And, while I have no idea about how she was in those vampire movies which seemingly half the world was ga-ga over before I had even heard of them, she was more than fine in 'Adventureland' and was decent enough in a small-ish role playing the sweet young thing in 'Into the Wild'. Dakota Fanning is the only other name I recognize there although I realize as I type this that I have no idea who she is or what she's done even though I guess I'm supposed to know.

One of the odd things is that Washington was rumored to be on the chopping block at various times over the past year or two and you suspect something like this would have pushed that thought over the edge. Now heading into this year, Texas is a sexy pick to win a division and then maybe even a playoff round (they never have). Plus they've now got a stacked minor league system which actually contains some live arms so the pressure to win is suddenly go to increase around there.

Or maybe they just thought it sounded too much like they were changing batteries instead of levels.

In 1963 and 64, the Mets had a farm team in Salinas in the California League. In 63 it was called C level, and in 64, they changed descriptions with no team/league below an A level, so it became an A level league. Yeah, now there's just about four different sub-levels of 'A': high-A, low-A, short-season A, rookie A I often wonder if that was done out of some ahead-of-the-curve self-esteem issue thing like they do with school kids these days. Like the players would feel better about themselves if they weren't assigned to 'B', 'C' or (god forbid) 'D' ball even though nothing really changed. Either that or I guess somewhere near Salinas they let it slip away.

I remember starting a thread one time where we generated a larger (tho I don't think definitive) list of born, died, and born+died Mets - but I don't remember when it was and it's back from before the timespan where the search feature reaches.

[Francesa]"It's all about the cawr"[/Francesa]

Relaford, as many will remember, went on to have a more than decent season that year ... and yet I somehow restrained myself from bringing that thread back from the depths in order to throw it in the faces of all the dummies involved. Wow. No wonder 9-11 happened No wonder this place did.

metirish wrote: So when kids like this are cut don't they just stay in PSL anyway? Yes, but they're forced to workout only on the back fields where no one talks to them anymore, where women avoid making eye contact, and children spit on them as they walk by. Actually, they're still eligible to play in regular games and so on, it's largely just a paperwork move for guys who weren't going to make the OD squad anyway. Of the cut-squad so far, only Thole can be seen as even a mildly surprising move - and even then only for the timing.

metirish wrote: Jay Bell had the story about his dad being a reporter out in LA....that was his contribution.....IIRC. That wasn't Bell. The even less used (74 ABs in 2007) David Newhan was the guy with the (HoF) father sportswriter.

It seemed that just as a job opened up for Reed* Jerry gave cut-sies in the line to the similarly-skilled Cory Sullivan and made him the #1 replacement instead - in effect giving Reed get less playing time after a job was open than he did before. Has anyone ever contributed less with a full season than Jay Bell? Is it even possible? * while typing this, I initially mis-spelled his name as 'Reek' and now wonder how it is no one here ever got around to hanging that moniker on him.