Edgy MD

I don't necessarily think they're going to get a regular season appearance. But I worry.

Hi, I'm Carlos Delgado and I'm 34. I worry that the TV station will be filled with dumb stuff, and the substance of Mets brand will degrade as much off the field as it has degraded on. New stadium (probably corporately named), new batting helmets --- lots of potential for dumbness. And well, yeah, it sounds like I want to live in my conservative little bubble, but I fear much conservative dumb corporate structuring: "We're rich, we can afford to make decisions based on proven models."

No reason to speculate. The alleged harlequins of the posterior make their cases throughout the "2nd base - 2006" thread.

The judge says I'm not allowed to anymore, but the paper says he's having a tough spring. PlayerWLERAGGSCGSHOSVSVOIPHRERHRHBPBBSOKazmir119.724400008.11110941106 Trachselian.

Talk to Paul LoDuca about that. Carlos Delgado, meanwhile, is hitting .588. And all I can think about is a strange discomfort with seeing him in 21. Strange, as he's a far more suitable inheritor of Cleon's digits than Mark Little or Gerald Williams or probably the two of them and all the rest of the 21s put together.

A foretaste of a summer of love, or a cruel and bitter tease?

Consider yourself what you will. Ms. Gershon is probably no older than Axl Rose.

He would be the first Caleb in Met history. Nice walk numbers.

The Yankees win, but can't advance to the next round after a string of arrests leaves them gutted.

And we're miserable.

I certainly don't think I said otherwise, sharp. I didn't quote you. I came up with two hypotheticals.

To say more, give me an opinion like Willets Point's "It's worth five stars when it's FUCKING GREAT and we want to give it FIVE FUCKING STARS! Fuck yeah!"If sharpie is shy about giving a film five stars because it doesn't measure up to Citizen Kane, too bad for the film. If he won't or can't give it five stars because nothing can measure up to Citizen Kane until looked back on over decades of perspective, too bad for us. Nothing obviously would get five stars and we are foolish to even have it as a possiblity. Everything's more or less OK until the dust of history settles.That won't help me decide what to do on Friday night.

Now, is anybody's original thought "eroded" by exposure to my critical opinion? Gosh, i'd hope not.Of course not. The point is that when the most powerful critic of his or her era loves a movie and points out what to find, weaker critics who aren't sure what they think will fall in line, rather than risk an original thought. People will fall over like dominoes. There are literally thousands of people right now saying that they like Brokeback Mountain, because they think they're supposed to because of who they think they are. There are also thousands at this moment saying they don't like it because of who they think they are, and who they align themselves with. Many of these folks haven't even seen it. If Howard Stern says boo, a million yahoos fall in line, it doesn't matter what the subjectMy statement was that folks are being asked their firm opinion now after seeing a film without (1) the benefit of time and perspective, unfortunately (I used the word "benefit" suggesting that this is a positive thing --- it does make more than an iota of difference), and (2) the bullying effect of critical consensus.That's what I think is being solicited. I can read what critics say anywhere. I want to know what sharpie thinks.Basing opinions on MORE data rather than less is a good thing. Always.Some data is bad. Misleading. Biased.You are still asserting that exposure to the opinions of others about a film erodes one's original thoughts, and i still assert that such opinions are worth considering, whether one rejects or accepts the consensus they build (or the lack thereof that they reflect).If it leads to responses along the line of "I didn't think much of it but I gave it a better rating because I have to acknowledge everybody else did and it's enduring influence is such that..."... it seems to defeat the point of this exercise. It doesn't help me. I understand which way the cultural wind is blowing.

It's pretty odd that the HTML comes out as code if you're not logged in. It obscures the store from window shopping.

Time, context, perspective... according to Edgy, these lead to an understanding that "erodes original thought"?I'm misquoted in this thread. My statement was that exposure to the winds of critical consensus erodes original thought, not that time, context, and perspective do.

So I've heard. There's a backlog at the whistle plant.

Something's amiss with my spreadsheet, so I can't show my work. 30) Wright 29) Martinez 28) Floyd 27) Reyes 26) Beltran 25) Glavine 24) Piazza 23) Heilman 22) Benson 21) Zambrano 20) Cameron 19) Hernandez 18) Seo 17) Diaz 16) Castro 15) Anderson 14) Cairo 13) Matsui 12) Looper 11) Mientkiewicz 10) Jacobs 9) Padilla 8) Ishii 7) Woodward 6) Bell 5) Koo 4) Trachsel 3) DeJean 2) Ring 1) Aybar

Don't go bein' a punk.

I'm working on something.

3) Which lefty or lefties will get a shot in the bullpen? This isn't getting much more than a shrug, and an "all of them." I guess I meant, which lefty or lefties will rise to the top and possibly break camp with the team.

Well, Nady had an OPS+ of 106 last year while playing more, and is probably the superior defender. If you're committed to Diaz, so then you are. But I don't think the Mets got him to sit him behind Diaz without a long look.

1) I've always thought that the idea of picking a starter based on spring training stats instead of the players' long existing statistical record is the epitome of idiocy in baseball...that being said i'll HOPE Diaz gets the job. Well, when people are largely even, you've got to go with something. 2) successful spring spring? sure, why not? the better question is whether we'll be screaming for Seo on May 1st. It's not a spring question. I think we may still have rotation depth, just from different sources, but I think those sources aren't really less credible than Seo and Heilman et al. were last year. That in no way says that they'll be as successful stepping in as Seo and Heilman last year --- or as successful as Seo and Benson this year.

Yeah, I'm thinking that Matsui isn't such a burning question, at least for spring. He stays healthy enough, he's got to open the season with the job, I think. I certainly considered that one, though.

With apolgies to metsgeek who gave me the idea, but many of these questions are mine. 1) Who establishes himself as the rightfielder? Diaz or Nady? 2) Will Heilman reward the faith shown in him with a successful spring. 3) Which lefty or lefties will get a shot in the bullpen? 4) Who will open the season as Billy Wagner's primary setup man? Remember that last year we opened with what'shisname (Mike DeJean, I had to look it up) as our primary eighth-inning guy). 5) Will Keppinger or Hernandez make the team? 6) Will Mitch Wylie make it, knowing that the Mets lose him if he doesn't get carried? (I'm guessing no, but the Mets pay his ransom anyhow.) The Mets have never had a Mitch, right? 7) What non-roster retreads survive? 8) Who will open the season batting second? 9) How openly will Minaya talk with the media about the unpopular (at least in these quarters) Seo and Benson deals? 10) Will Pedro's toe enter into the picture?

He did some pitching in the minors, but his power quickly revealed itself and put him on the hitting track. It probably was a good call, as his approach to the game was never considered to be scientific. He did some mopup work in the majors, but never for the Mets. I recall once reading a report of tthe Mets were running out of pitchers in a game, and Rube Walker looking at Kingman. "You pitched a few times for San Francisco, Dave. What was your ERA?" "Four." At this point Rube just stared at him unblinkingly until Kong walked away grinning and mumbled, "...teen." Darryl, Kong --- I've got this soft spot for big, crazy, oversensitive rogues.