RealityChuck

Neither impress me much, but the action shot in 1941 is preferable.

Tough choice, but 1970 is more interesting and adventurous. 2011 would beat most other contenders, though.

Sentiment is nice, but 2002 is the better design.

Nowhere near a bust. Degrom -- star Syndergaard -- star Wheeler -- jury still out, but probably a successful career. Matz -- jury still out. Depends on if he can stay healthy. Harvey -- Big success at first, though looking like a bust right now. So four out of five ain't bad.

I notice the Baseball Reference's similarity score lists Travis D'Arnaud as his #2.

I prefer to see things from multiple angles. 1997

I think I've made it clear in the past that I don't like the cartoony covers.

78 is a sucky cover. Just a random action shot with no context. It's in the second round because it's competition was egregiously ugly. Plus, I still have '76 around somewhere.

First time in years that the team went with a baseball decision which ignored the financial end. Harvey is useless right now; some time in the minors is his only hope. If another team does sign him, you can bet it'll be to a minor league contract, anyway. Another in a long line of poor decisions by Harvey.

1990 is objectively the better cover, but you have to give points for 1962 for being the first.

2002. Better photos, better design. It's similar enough to 1977 to be an upgraded version of it.

The issue is this: movies are expensive to make, and ticket prices keep increasing. The investment in a film is so immense, that producers get nervous on anything new or different. They worry that the movie won't find an audience, that the concept won't draw enough money to make back their money. So they lean toward properties that people recognize. It's easier to market a film with a familiar name or character, so they look for familiar names and characters. Audience look at the cost of a ticket and also want assurance they'll like it. If they recognize the franchise/remake, they know what they're getting for their money. So the two trends dovetail. Also, audiences want spectacle. If you're paying $15 a ticket, you don't want to see a movie without it. Small dramas can play out on TV, but people want something for their money that doesn't come across on TV. So spectacle it is, and when it comes connected with a known name, financing falls into place. And if you can't provide the spectacle, a known quantity is easier to finance and sell. I've seen this trend occur in other art forms: as cost and prices rise, people are unwilling to risk money on something unknown.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: It's a sweatshirt day in SD? During peak hours on a 70-75 degree day? Thin blood. When I went there years ago, it was in the 60s (the temperature I heat my house) and they were putting out space heaters. And it was -10 when I left Albany for the flight. Wimps.

2007 is far more visually interesting. I like symmetry, but 1973 takes it too far, making it dull.

smg58 wrote: Agreed. He's their sixth best starter right now, and that's assuming you aren't even considering Lugo and Gsellman. And I think he has a better chance of working things out under the watch of Callaway here than in Las Vegas. If he'd even agree to go there.

Really the only sensible solution, for the team and for Harvey.

A great film from start to finish. The visuals, the characters, the story, are about as good as you can get. Anderson is stylized to the point of self-satire, but he manages to make it work, and each of his films are a little bit better. The best animated film I've seen in years, and, if there were any justice in this world, it deserves to get a Best Picture nomination.

Two good designs, but I went with the simplicity and elegance of 1986.

1972 did a great job of matching up action pictures, one of the few where it really works. 2008 is both dull (the general layout) and too busy (the tiny photos).

Lobaton will be in Flushing by tomorrow (by today, if he can get a flight). To get him on the 40-man move either D'Arnaud or Wright to the 60-day DL. It's not ideal, but he's the only option who can step in immediately (they need a backup today) and he won't cost the team in prospects. Nido should be No. 1 for now. He's probably not ready, but it's better to give him the experience. Lobaton will spell him until Plawecki can play -- say sometime before mid-May.

Once I realized it was a lenticular cover, 1997 was the obvious choice. Better layout and far more ambitious.

I'll go with the diagonal over the Wes Anderson design.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Partial right elbow UCL tear. Fuck. "May need surgery," according to Matt Ehalt of the Record. So what does "May need surgery" mean in Metsspeak? "See you in 2020."

1971. The action photo works far better than the static (and ultimately too busy) graphic. Plus it has Jerry Grote, who rarely got the respect he deserved.

From a design point of view, 2018 is far superior. But I voted for 1962 for historical importance.