RealityChuck

seawolf17 wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: You forgot the stupid in "Asdrubal Cabrera is a Stupid Dickhead." Because whether the aim is to get traded to a better team situation or to make the Mets pick up your option, opening your mouth at this point doesn't exactly get you closer to either, does it? You'd think, right? Call Sandy a douchebag behind closed doors and make your demands, but tell him "I'll go out there, say the right things, and be a team guy on this, but you promise me you'll try to get me the hell out of here." He should have taken a page from Mike Cameron, who made it clear to Sandy that he didn't want to return the next year, but who never mentioned it until after he was traded.

Ceetar wrote: Duda too though I'd like to keep him.I would, too, but it's likely he'll be gone next year. The team isn't going to lock him in with a long-term commitment, especially with Dominic Smith in the wings. Unless the team is in the thick of the race -- and that's looking less and less likely -- it makes sense to trade him.

This season makes me long for the days of 2009.

Great film that deserves to be on the Mount Rushmore of comic superhero movies with the Christopher Reeve Superman, the Tim Burton Batman and The Dark Knight. The final confrontation was the usual dull CGI fight, though it worked better because it had some ideas behind it. And the No Man's Land scene reached the level of cinema classic.

And here I'm thinking, "You don't have to hit it out of the park. Just into the outfield." The Dude abides!

One of the scary things about that list is that it includes seven of the nine players in the opening day lineup. Even if the team wins the World Series this year, they're going to be decimated in the offseason. The only one they can definitely bring back is Cabrera, but are they willing to pay him that much with Rosario in the wings? Reyes is an interesting case. He's probably going to have to take a massive pay cut no matter where he goes, but if the Mets sign him, they're going to be giving him a big raise (from their point of view). Unless things turn around quickly, I'm seeing a fire sale.

The number of walk-off wins is so small that they are no more than statistical noise. Their influence is miniscule.

Rockin' Doc wrote: Rockin' Doc wrote: metirish wrote: Interesting to see the all too common Thor backlash on social media , he's caught up in believing his actually Thor etc. Have to say as noted,turning down the MRI and the team letting an employee turn it down is reckless Refusing the MRI was pretty stupid on Noah's part, but management can not force him to undergo any medical procedure that he does not wish to consent to having done. The Mets managememt could have elected to put him on the 10 day DL once he refused the test, but without knowing the extent of his injury (or if he was truly injured at the time) it would have been nothing but guess work. I put this squarely on Syndergaard for recklessly choosing not to have a test (MRI) done to evaluate if he was injured and to what extent. Explain how an MRI of his arm would have found problems with his lat. I am not an MRI expert, but I have extensive training (though long ago) in human anatomy and physiology. I am assuming that if a pitcher was to have an MRI for a "dead arm" a proper examination would include all of the muscles and ligaments used in throwing a baseball. The latissimus dorsi muscle is one of the largest muscles in the body. It arises from the thoracic vertebrae, runs diagonally across the back over the lower portion of scapula (shoulder blade), travels along the side under the arm and attaches to the posterior aspect of the superior humerus bone of the upper arm. The latissimus dorsi muscle plays an active role in adduction (brings the arm toward the body), extending the arm, and rotation of the the arm at the shoulder. An MRI that would examine the muscles used in the throwing motion would certainly include the portion of the latissimus dorsi muscle that runs across the lower shoulder region and inserts onto the posterior aspect of the upper humerus bone. The proposed MRI very likely would not have included the portion of the latissimus dorsi as it originates in the mid-back region. After the pitch, Noah grabbed under his arm in the region where the "lat" muscle comes travels along the side of the ribs before inserting on the upper portion of the posterior humerus bone. All that said, whether the MRI would have shown an injury to the "lat" muscle or not, I believe it was a very poor decision not to pursue any reasonable examination or procedure that could be used to evaluate a possible injury. No one will ever know whether (or not) a small tear existed prior to the more severe tear that occurred during yesterday’s game. Except that Thor never complained about an injury to his lat. So an MRI would probably not have shown anything wrong with that, especially since the doctors would be concentrating on his arm. And nothing in the actual MRI report indicated there also was an injury to his arm (and you can bet they would have checked that this time). So it's highly unlikely an MRI would have revealed anything wrong. Occam's razor would indicate it was injured during the game. The most likely scenario would be that Thor's arm was a little sore (with no actual damage that would have appeared in the MRI) and in pitching with it, he messed up his motion and tore the muscle. It's bad luck, but I can't see how the early MRI would have made any difference.

Rockin' Doc wrote: metirish wrote: Interesting to see the all too common Thor backlash on social media , he's caught up in believing his actually Thor etc. Have to say as noted,turning down the MRI and the team letting an employee turn it down is reckless Refusing the MRI was pretty stupid on Noah's part, but management can not force him to undergo any medical procedure that he does not wish to consent to having done. The Mets managememt could have elected to put him on the 10 day DL once he refused the test, but without knowing the extent of his injury (or if he was truly injured at the time) it would have been nothing but guess work. I put this squarely on Syndergaard for recklessly choosing not to have a test (MRI) done to evaluate if he was injured and to what extent. Explain how an MRI of his arm would have found problems with his lat.

Became a fan in 1965. I got into baseball at the wrong time: 1961. Since I lived on Long Island, that meant I rooted for the MFYs. And, of course, you had the Mantle/Maris battle that year. I was a Maris fan; my first MLB game was when he hit #61. In the summer of 1964, I went off to summer camp, so I couldn't follow baseball and lost interest. But in the fall, I idly followed the MFYs in the World Series. When they lost, I decided that if I was going to follow a team that lost world series, I'd follow the Mets, who would never be in one anyway. (Also my brothers' friends were Mets fans. And about that time, Ed Kranepool and Larry Miller made a PR stop about a half hour from where I lived; the Yankees never did anything like that). So I started learning about new players: Hawk Taylor, Joe Christopher, Kranepool, Jack Fisher, etc. By the end of the season I was hooked.

BTW, Alfred Newman was the inspiration if the name "Alfred E. Neumann" ( though not the appearance)

Lefty Specialist wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Rosenthal reports Fernando Salas is returning on a 1 year deal. Good stuff. He stabilized things down the stretch. Sign Blevins and you're done. Your wish is my command.

The only Mets game I've seen on the road was in Wrigley Field. Degrom pitched to no decision, but gave up a home run to the pitcher to lose the lead. The Mets came back, but lost it in the end. The best part was seeing the game at Wrigley.

I've only been to a game a handful of times. My first was October 2, 1966. What I remember most is that Sean Fitzmaurice started in the outfield. Back then, routine transactions were not always well covered, so when they announced his name, I had two thoughts: Who is Sean Fitzmaurice? And that sounds like the most Irish name ever.

Never fear, tovarich. There's another one tonight.

As a big fan of La La Land, I'm delighted. It's also great the "Audition (The Dreamers that Dream)" is up for best song. I am disappointed the Amy Adams and Taraji P. Henson didn't get Best Actress nods.

Ceetar wrote: I assume it's just bookkeeping of various points. moving money around, and keeping 'control' of Mejia should he actually be reinstated. That's certainly it. If tomorrow, the commissioner plays Emily Litella, the Mets can bring back Mejia as soon as he's in shape. And if he want to get in shape quickly, there's probably a pill he could take for it....

I think it will go down as one of the great films of the 21st century. It shows the magic of movies and musicals, while at the same time subverting the expectations. The "meet cute," for instance, is an acknowledgment of the trope while also taking it into a loving absurdity. I don't get the criticism of Emma Stone's singing -- she did play Sally Bowles on Broadway. I think it's because people are used to belters, but the songs are performed more like older jazz -- small, more intimate, quieter. (Note the singer in the opening number, for instance. She had to be chosen for her voice, and she's singing in the same style). And her rendition of "The Fools That Dream" nails the song -- a song she and the songwriter had to nail to make the movie work.

A new movie musical following the lives and love of an aspiring actress and a jazz musician trying to make it in Los Angeles.

I'm against it. He may be a Hall of Famer, but he's been dead for 75 years.

Pretty routine and by-the-numbers. Interminable battle scenes that grew pretty tedious, and which started to look like the deathtrap on Galaxy Quest. The mechanics of the story were pretty clunky; things were done not because the story demanded it, but to keep the fanboys happy. The characters weren't particularly interesting (except for the robot) and were as clichéd as they could be, and they never transcended the stereotypes like in the original film. Not actively bad, but at the level of 1930s programmers. I'd rate it as the fifth best SW film. It's better than 1, 2, and 3, but not as good as the others.

Saw it today. It is the best sf film since 12 Monkeys. Sophisticated storytelling, real sf problems, and amazing emotional depth. Nice use of suspense, and nothing but smart characters. Ted Chaing, who wrote the original story, is an amazing writer and the movie takes all the strengths of his story and uses it perfectly. Fine acting, too, and the ending gives you a lot to think about. Definitely see it.

Remember we picked him up for "cash considerations"? The full amount has been revealed (at the bottom of the article): $1 https://sports.yahoo.com/news/gimme-hundred-red-sox-brewers-trade-contains-100-085959230--mlb.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Sandy made the right roster moves.

So why as T.J. Rivera become the invisible man? He's played all infield positions in the minors (though fewer at first base). He would fit where Campbell die and he hits better.