Edgy MD

You skipped a dude. #947: Greg Burke stepping in the bucket as a matter of form. #948: LaTroy Hawkins, coming to you right from the heart.

I'm getting a continuous loop of commercials featuring Aubrey Plaza being mean to college students.

"Mark Kotsay announced as a free agent, so Terry's going to bring in a lefthander to face him." Cohen with a rare case of aphasia there.

Burke's lead foot flies out toward the first-base line. It's like he's bailing out on himself.

Pulling the Har after 94 pitches. Grumpy.

As somebody who gets different between-inning fun than y'all, I'd appreciate if you could link to an online version of these ads.

I'll take a Nat series. I still read The Post.

How miserable must it be for a Padre fan to open the season this way? Poor Jerry Lewis.

These are the days, my friends. Let us make the most of 'em.

Zvon wrote: And as Im typing that the booth says the same. YEAAAAAAAA! Ike's not only an enormous baseball monster, but he's so scary that his teammates wear away unis at home, because they're unworthy to share his sartorial choices. And Nick Hundley dresses like a National, because if Ike gets angry he doesn't want to be recognized.

Davis lands the big punch but Marlon Byrd gets credit for the knockout.

Welcome to 2013, Ike. Best .125 hitter I've ever seen.

I love how aggressive Havey is in the zone. These pitches are unquestionably strikes, but seem to be a place and speed that the batter absolutely isn't expecting and gives up on early. Everything hard, too. Like David Cone with a strong upper body. I don't even want to make any comparison that rhymes with "weaver." After years of watching Pelfrey get ahead and then bounce two curveballs away that fooled very few, it's revelation.

"Did you hear the ovation that Teuf got on opening day?" "Yeah! They love you '86 Mets." "Well... we can understand that."

I don't know about you, but I'm Buck naked.

And Harvey dealing like he's trying to drive the Padres into a four-month slump. (Oops, first hit.)

Vic Sage wrote: (and as Edgy condescendingly dismissed as just "wrong") It's condescending? He wrote things that weren't right. Bobby Bonilla is not one of the Mets' highest paid players. (Higher? Maybe.) It's an obvious distortion and I'm not sure exactly how you politely you want that to be fielded. I try really hard. And a little strange for you to object to condescension.

Either its well known that he's secretly gay, or it's a secret that he's well known to be gay. I'm not sure which. Maybe the latter. Steve Zabriskie, when chatting here, lightly said that he long believed Rusty was in love with his wife. Do with that what you want. Guy comes out of the woodwork every now and then, a lot of trouble-making uncles are going to be burping the old saw at their coming-of-baseball-age nieces and nephews. >> "Uncle Pete. Who's Rusty Stopp?" >> "Le Grande Orange? Great ballplayer. Huge homo. (slap!) What?! What did I say?!"

Ceetar wrote: It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article. but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes. Sheesh, a little pedantic. I understand what I did. There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Why do we think that? I haven't gotten any kind of a vibe one way or the other. (I haven't seen any commercials or trailers.) All I know is that Harrison Ford is playing Branch Rickey, which seems like strange casting. (I would have gone with Stephen Root.) My suspicions start with them choosing 42 as a title. The continue with the selection of Harrison Ford. And they go right on through the basic reality that most biopics of American icons stink. When it's a subject that you have deep knowledge of and that is close to your heart, one gets... trepadatious.

Ceetar wrote: The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it? I'm not sure who you are addressing here. Ceetar wrote: Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there. What's still where? Ceetar wrote: Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? I didn't say there shouldn't. I've long supported the notion. You're twisting my argument here and you know it. Ceetar wrote: He's important. more than baseball important. I've said as much Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. I've mostly said as much. (I'd dispute the no-better-place-in-the-country business.) You're just throwing slop at me here. Answering statements I never made. Red herrings. Ceetar wrote: You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something. I'm not squabbling. I made a reasonable assertion.

It was entertained around the turn of the century. I can't say how extensive the inquiries were, but it was reported as an option they were considering. Obviously, with all the rights an organization has to secure to build in New York, using the location they already had helped them past a lot of hurdles.

The Brooklyn Navy Yards was considered.

Ceetar wrote: the statue of the number ties into the MLB thing. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical. I agree that ties into the MLB thing. MLB has declared 42 eternally retired (except when it's not) and a blue 42 is displayed on the inner fa�ade of every stadium, and that makes the Robinson rotunda sort of the national capital of that statement. But a sincere statement doesn't really need a capital, and by doing it advance MLB ends and curry favor with MLB powers, that speaks to cynicism as well. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. I love numbers, but I'd say they're disproportionally important when a randomly assigned two-digit number is the best we can do to make a monument to sum up the great man's legacy. Jean-Luc Picard would scratch his bald head if he visited a planet where the citizens built monuments to their esteemed progenitors and what they stood for in the form of giant numbers. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical. Well, yeah, I'd say advancing MLB first and civil rights second while pretending to be exclusively the latter does exactly exactly those two things. Come on! Exactly exactly!

I think it's important to distinguish "most cynical" from "worst." The issues with the rotunda, I think, underscore this. I don't see this as a team-betraying tribute to the Dodgers. I think it's an important part of what Fred wanted, a celebration of a great New York park that went before. I don't think in any way that it was conceived with Jackie Robinson in mind. That was an afterthought --- a defense against demands that the whole park be named for Robinson, and definitely the sort of statement that helps you build and maintain the sort of coalition it takes to free up public money and approval to get a stadium built. >>> "I don't see why, with all the problems this city has, we should be supporting bending over backwards for this ballteam and these very rich men." >>> "Did you see this part? The Robinson Rotunda! >>> "Yeah, and that's great. But I don't see how that's..." >>> "What? Do you hate Jackie Robinson? We're trying to end racism here. So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle. I love Jackie Robinson and support tributes to him, but if you really cared thoughtfully about his legacy, would you really build a statue of a number? That's such an afterthought.