Edgy MD

I wouldn't mind seeing Warthan go, because I hate seeing guys *CoughPelfrey* get ahead 0-2 with runners on base, and then give up that advantage by bouncing curveballs away, only to come back inside and groove one 2-2 or 3-2 for the heartbreaker. I associate that sequence withe Warthan. But it may be over-simplistic for me to believe it came with him or leaves with him. I don't know who to hang for pitchers being pulled while they're still effective --- Warthan? Collins? Debus? Going to Byrdak with two out in the seventh and a guy at first or nobody on? Really? Stop that shit.

Superbad thread. Love the old Fgirl avatar.

I thought the team's outfielding deteriorated the last time they had Mookie, also. Cedeno deteriorated as a basestealer as well. I would guess you don't want guys teaching defense necessarily who brought prodigious athletic skills to the job, but rather guys who had something less but mastered the mechanics of it. I'm not sure who I would cite as an example. Interestingly, Terry inherted Warthan but stuck with him, just like Willie inherited Peterson and stuck with him.

So Mookie will be offered another job in the organization, but Oberkfell won't? I'm sure it's because of the Metliness factor. Well, considering he's historically served between uniform stints as a brand ambassador, that's somewhat appropriate. Mookie's a resilient guy. The Mets have taken that uniform away from him seemingly a half dozen times by now, and he keeps coming back for more. The guy has his own trucking business and drives trucks in the offseason. Long rides through the night with just himself and the radio for company. He doesn't need the uniform to affirm his identity. He's good with who he is.

Brutal! And, insofar as I connect Wilson and Oberkfell with the team's defensive breakdown, sadly warrented. Accountability's a bitch. Chip Hale, though. What's the story there? Interviewing for the Red Sox job?

You'll never reach the top until you cut Ian Stewart loose. Take a lesson from the Rolling Stones.

i liked Wiig and Maya Rudolph's relationship, Yeah, it was a relationship you can immediately recognize, but is almost never depicted onscreen. It was almost like the writers and directors and actors have hung out with actual human beings in the last 10-20 years. and Melissa McCarthy is one strangely compelling actress. Yeah, you give in to that character despite yourself, don't you? But i found Wiig's character really unsympathetic and whiny, so i wasn't rooting for her as hard as i needed to in order to LIKE IT like it, as the girls say. I hear you, girlfriend. She was weak and self-destructive, but I think it's a virtue that she was such a fuck-up, assuring me that I'm not watching another Q-Rating-driven piece of excrement. My wife made unfamiliar noises of recognition and sympathy from the get-go, and while you're welcome to believe that says more about her than the filmmakers, I appreciated it. I figured a movie called Bridesmaids could have been one of two things. One, it could have been a saccharine unfunny overglamourous rom-com starring Jennifer Lopez, Kate Hudson, and makeup, fashions, and hairstyles that paid their way into the movie. Two, it could have been a crude sendup by a second-rate John Waters exploding the whole exploitative wedding industrial complex and accompanying bridesmaid humiliation. I gave it a chance because I heard from a friend how she was present at the genesis of this thing and saw it through as the creators developed it and loved it the whole way. That friend is of the female persuasion and living in Hollywood, but I thought, "what the hell?" It was both sentimental and crude but damned if they didn't find a third way. (Minor Spoiler Alert: At one point in this film, a re-united Wilson Phillips appears onscreen. The three singers, while not shown close-up, are clearly shellacked in a horrifying amount of makeup. It comes late enough in the film, that as I noted it, I thought, "Oh yeah, that's kind of what I was expecting from this whole film.") At some points, as the tension mounts and the protagonist makes some terrible choices that expose her to bitter humiliation, I found myself reduced to some Three's Company-type embarrassment where I was physically moved to turn away from the screen or wipe my hands on my clothes, but I was committed to see it through, and am glad I did. I think women will recognize the characters with the same sort of endearing embarrassment that men had for the characters in SuperBad, and I really think the creators have a good chance at having a perennial on their hands here.

I don't think it's a pipedream. I don't even smoke a pipe.

I liked it more than that. I was surprised.

And the team potentially failing was as predictable as the turning of the leaves in autumn. And a marketing plan that anticipates and transcends the seasons and cycles of success and failure would be... inspired and sustainable.

Ceetar wrote: I think if they were having issues selling those seats, with all they've adjusted, they'd have adjusted those as well. And if their original plan was inspired or sustainable, they wouldn't be adjusting it every year.

Well, the meaning of high-priced is relative, but I'll be disappointed by any commitment that's big enough that they will have to ride out a disappointing stretch rather than being flexible.

No, he's Anthony Taylor Whitendon, apparently going by "Taylor" except in my recaps.

It seems like the Mets are unwillingly evolving toward a market position of what they should be: accessible, engaging, good value. They just can't bring themselves to concede the top shelf. And it's just not healthy. It's 2011 (or 2012 for them, I guess), and there are a lot more plebeians than patriarchs in the marketplace. Outflank those fuckers. The market doesn't bare that though. I think what you mean to say is that the market bears this and more. Yeah, the Mets have are able to sell seats to beautiful people who don't show up, but still throw down money just in case they start caring again, while visible seats grow more underpopulated as the season progresses. My position, as a man who has succeeded at almost nothing professionally, is that's uninspired and unsustainable. I so dream of the MLB monopoly collapsing.

From Wikipedia: Peoria (/pi???ri?/) is a city in Maricopa and Yavapai counties in the U.S. state of Arizona. Located primarily in Maricopa County, it is a major suburb of Phoenix. According to 2010 Census Bureau releases, the population of the city is 154,065.[3] Peoria is currently the sixth largest city in Arizona for land area, and the ninth largest for population. It was named after Peoria, Illinois. (The word peoria is a corruption of the Illini word for �prairie fire�.[4][5]) Peoria is now larger in population than its namesake. It is the spring training home of the San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners who share the Peoria Sports Complex. In July 2008, Money magazine listed Peoria in its "Top 100 Places to Live".[6] Interesting that the word comes from the Illini. Like so many retiring mid-westerners after them, much of the tribe migrated (under duress) to the southwest.

That's the attitude. I want the job filled in house. (I don't necessarily even think they need an overhaul in the pen.) I think they'll go outside. I fear the notion that they may go outside too big. Again.

It seems like the Mets are unwillingly evolving toward a market position of what they should be: accessible, engaging, good value. They just can't bring themselves to concede the top shelf. And it's just not healthy. It's 2011 (or 2012 for them, I guess), and there are a lot more plebeians than patriarchs in the marketplace. Outflank those fuckers.

That's a good "other." Think they'll go for it? Matt Capps' butt:

This isn't about who you want (although you're welcome to share that also), but who you think. Who do you think the Mets are going to look to as their primary game-ender in 2012?

Gwreck gets Batista despite the incorrect win total. That's why you shouldn't copy and paste, kids. Thanks for playing.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 1. Name this player, 45, who was drafted as a first baseman in 1988 by the Pirates, but has spent 19 years in the big leagues at another position. wakefield Good one! John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 2. This 41-year-old, in his 20th big league season, currently pitches for the Cardinals, his ninth employer in the majors. The only time he was sent to the All-Star game was last year while with the Reds. Rhoades Late and poorly spelled, but well done. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 3. This 40-year-old playing in Colorado has an MVP Award on his resume and has driven in more than 100 runs seven times. Helton That was my incorrect answer too. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 4. This pitcher, 40, has appeared in more than 630 big league games, only 87 as a starter. He has played with eight different teams. He debuted in 1993 with Texas, his current team. Oliver Well done. The Mets deserve a million dollars for saving his career. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 5. This 41-year-old has spent all 17 seasons with the same club. He is the only player in the bigs wearing his number. Rivera Would the current version of the Yankees have the guts to let John Wetteland walk like that? John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 6. This player, 41, currently with Milwaukee, has never been an All-Star or a Gold Glove winner in his 16 seasons, but did win the NLCS MVP award in 2001 while with Arizona. Counsell So very correct. I conflate this guy with Steve Finley, for some reason. 7. This 40-year-old hurler has 41 career saves, with 31 coming in 2005 while with Toronto. He has 100 wins, with 16 coming in 2007 while with Seattle. He has also led his league in walks (2004) and wild pitches (2006). Oh, just guess! John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 8. This slugger, 41, has played with six clubs, including the Phillies from 2003-05, has 96 career home runs in the National League - many more in the American. Thome Thome. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 9. He is 44 with 11 Gold Gloves and has the most sacrifices among active players. Now with the White Sox, he broke in as a teammate of answer No. 8. Vizquel Somehow still active. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 10. This 41-year-old is in only his sixth major league season. He is with his fourth club and has earned more than 80 career saves. Saito Neato! John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 11. A teammate of answer No. 5, he turned 40 in August, has been an All-Star five times and in 2003 was third in the MVP voting. Posada Good show. Went down swinging on one and looking at another, but nine hits.

Frayed Knot wrote: #2 is Arthur Lee Rhodes #3 is Giambi Bingo, bango.

Ceetar wrote: Gwreck wrote: 1. The Mets' alleged dynamic pricing is a sham, because it incorporates an artificial price floor (specifically, the season-ticket-holder price). It's obvious they intend to protect the STH's investments, but by doing so, it's not really dynamic pricing. 2. Switching to Tickets.com is an unfortunate development. The Paciolan system the Mets used is far superior to the Tickets.com interface and user experience. I find it highly amusing that the Mets claim to have "selected" Tickets.com as their provider, given that Tickets.com is owned by MLB Advanced Media, LP. 3. Price reductions are a good thing. I get the impression that much of these reductions have been created by removing pricing tiers -- ie. seats that used to be called "Metropolitan Box Silver" or "Metropolitan Box Bronze" have been eliminated and are now just called (and priced at the level of) "Metropolitan Box." I'm going to ask David Howard that first question. There should be no floor on non-season ticket holder sections, but they seem to have extended season ticket options to ALL sections as well. Unless they mean they'll sell ticket plans to section 504/503 and have dynamic pricing in sections 530/531? I was also curiosu about the second, but I have no familiarity with tickets.com. I'm curious if other Paciolan clubs switched as well. Specifically, will this alter the amount of surcharges and fees? Will fans finally be able to select specific seats, as you can with ticketmaster? Ceetar does just that, coming on in relief of Kerel Cooper. I think Ed Kranepool Society Guy had the best question.

Correcto x2. This kwiz, by the way, is swiped.

Name these 40- and 40-plus-year-old big leaguers. 1. Name this player, 45, who was drafted as a first baseman in 1988 by the Pirates, but has spent 19 years in the big leagues at another position. 2. This 41-year-old, in his 20th big league season, currently pitches for the Cardinals, his ninth employer in the majors. The only time he was sent to the All-Star game was last year while with the Reds. 3. This 40-year-old playing in Colorado has an MVP Award on his resume and has driven in more than 100 runs seven times. 4. This pitcher, 40, has appeared in more than 630 big league games, only 87 as a starter. He has played with eight different teams. He debuted in 1993 with Texas, his current team. 5. This 41-year-old has spent all 17 seasons with the same club. He is the only player in the bigs wearing his number. 6. This player, 41, currently with Milwaukee, has never been an All-Star or a Gold Glove winner in his 16 seasons, but did win the NLCS MVP award in 2001 while with Arizona. 7. This 40-year-old hurler has 41 career saves, with 31 coming in 2005 while with Toronto. He has 100 wins, with 16 coming in 2007 while with Seattle. He has also led his league in walks (2004) and wild pitches (2006). 8. This slugger, 41, has played with six clubs, including the Phillies from 2003-05, has 96 career home runs in the National League - many more in the American. 9. He is 44 with 11 Gold Gloves and has the most sacrifices among active players. Now with the White Sox, he broke in as a teammate of answer No. 8. 10. This 41-year-old is in only his sixth major league season. He is with his fourth club and has earned more than 80 career saves. 11. A teammate of answer No. 5, he turned 40 in August, has been an All-Star five times and in 2003 was third in the MVP voting.