RealityChuck

OK, but a step down from the other Guest films.

On of Sondheim's better scores (he may write great lyrics, but he's a third-rate composer, and his best work is when someone else wrote the music), but the movie tries too hard and doesn't succeed.

One of the greatest lines in the history of film: "Find me a dead cat."

Best comedy I've seen in years. Genuinely funny, both in the plot and the sendup of action movie cliches.

Parker (like Ridley Scott) is wildly inconsistent. His best stuff is excellent, and I like the way he takes chances, but when he is bad, he is very very bad. I like Bugsy Malone, Fame, The Committments, Mississippi Burning and, to a lesser extent, Evita (for making the attempt of getting movie musicals on the screen again).

Rheingold came first.

But Crisp can be on the all-cereal team with Zach Wheat, Jim and Sam Rice, Johnny Oates, Joe "Oats" Demestri, Joe Milette, Gene Rye and Carl and Willie Maize, and Bran Rickey.

Shaeffer? Why not Rheingold?

Several are available on eBay.

OK. We know that Sidd Finch is the #1 starter and Chico Escuela is a utility infielder. Can we get an entire team?

Willets Point wrote: #12 and 35, man. John Cleese.#6 (Assuming Patrick McGoohan hasn't claimed it). (as in, "There is NO . . . ") Warren G. Harding

The Fab 4, of course. Robert Redford.

TheOldMole wrote: If we're talking classic New York National League sports, it would have to be Pistol Pete Reiser.Only if the player was injured crashing into an outfield wall.

Mo Vaughn, since he spent the better (and maybe the best) part of his Mets career on it.

Delgado had a terrible first half last year, but his second half was much better. His numbers in the first half were .242/.305/.435. while in the second half they were .285/.375/.469. What hurt his production most was the fact that he played in fewer games the second half. He also had some very good numbers once he moved out of the #4 slot. So, essentially, the main concern about Delgado is whether he is injured. If he remains injury free, his numbers are pretty good (especially in September: .321/.383/.566). It's hard to argue he's losing skills when the numbers show he improved as the season went on.

Hey, if the '62 Mets can lay claim to worst team ever, the '07 Mets can lay claim to worst collapse.

Of course, these things are really just ways to start arguments, but still . . . Power Rankings ] 1 Mets There is no question Santana was the missing piece. This isn't a perfect No. 1 overall pick, but they have the most potential to be dominant with no real weakness, assuming Santana can go his 230 innings. Unlike the Red Sox, they rely less on aging vets in the lineup and they should be far more motivated after last year's epic collapse. 2 Red Sox � They remain the pick here to cruise in the AL. Losing Curt Schilling won't hurt as much, because they were able to hang on to developing young arms Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz. We do see some soft spots in middle relief and setup: Hideki Okajima is closer to his second-half self (4.56 ERA) than his first half (0.83). 3 Tigers They have to win now and the world should get to see what Miguel Cabrera can do with a great supporting cast. Dontrelle Willis should have a nice rebound, too. We might have picked them No. 1 overall, but: 1. We are not sure Jeremy Bonderman (elbow) is healthy; 2. Todd Jones is tough to rely on at closer; 3. Joel Zumaya (shoulder) is out until at least July. 4 Phillies It is not too often a lineup can boast a trio of MVP candidates. The question is whether the pitching staff is deep enough after Cole Hamels and Brett Myers to limit the opposition in Citizens Bank Park. We're not sold on Brad Lidge's ability to keep the ball in the ballpark or to stay level-headed. 5 Indians A deep pitching staff should keep them in the race even if they have some injuries. That is something that can't be said for many (or any?) other teams. They very well could have won last year, but we are disappointed they didn't add much this winter. They should have done something, particularly adding a corner outfielder. 6 Yankees � Their offseason was about retaining their veterans, which is understandable. But they are counting on some old players at risk of breakdown and some young pitchers who haven't proven themselves over a full pro season of 180 innings.

I agree that Pelfrey needs some time in AAA. His problems last year were probably due to the fact he was rushed; note he pitched better after his recall. So keep him in Nawleans until mideseason or until Hernandez goes down.

Don't care about the apple either way. It wasn't a part of the Mets when I started following the team. I suppose it's good they'll continue the tradition, though.

No matter how good he does with the Mets, I would be against retiring 57. We need to keep it available in case we get a player named Heinz.

RIP. He was as much a part of the '69 team as any of the players.

metirish wrote: Buzz Capra, sounds like he should have been an Astronaut or at the least a character in Top Gun.One of our local sportscasters -- the immortal Dale Long -- could never even pronounce Capra's name correctly. It was always "Cap-PRAY." There were few sportscasters worse than Dale Long. But then what could you expect from a left handed catcher?

Alex Nelson at Met's Geek has started a series of the great names in Met history -- not necessarily great players (or even players who ever played more than a few games for the ML team), but great names. His first two choices are D.J. Dozier and Skip Lockwood. But why should he have all the fun? Let's list ours. My candidates: Shaun Fitzmaurice. Cup of coffee outfielder on the 1966 team. I happened to be at his first game. At at time when transactions often got buried, I had no idea where he had come from when his name was announced in the lineup. Went 2 for 13 and never played in the majors again, but the name stuck with me. It seems almost archetypically Irish. Ronald McDonald. He was a first baseman in the 60s or early 70s who never made it above AAA. His nickname was "Big Mac," of course. Howard Johnson. 28 flavors!

AG/DC wrote: It's easy for us to say money doesn't matter. It does.Really? If a guy gets the league minimum and and 20 win shares, and another guy gets $20 mill and 20 win shares, there's a difference in the team's performance? ]Blowing all of it on one guy keeps you from getting another better guy. Or lots of better guys.But that's impossible to quantify. How do you know what better guys you could have gotten with the money? Maybe the money would have been spent on getting worse guys. ]It also forces them to keep these guys around longer than they would have.Sometimes. Sometimes not. Besides, that's length of contract, not salary. ]David Cone was traded by the Mets for the sake of salary. The Jays didn't getting anything more out of him due to salary.No. What they got out of him was wins and losses, which they would have gotten out of him no matter what the salary. If a player helps the team, he helps despite his salary; if he hurts the team, he hurts it no matter what the salary. Salary is a factor in trades since free agency, but so is "team chemistry," whether a player is a "good citizen," whether he show promise, etc. You might as well factor those in, too.

Nymr83 wrote: i just don't think it makes much sense to take money into account in this way with the Mets. clearly the Mets have tons of it, so just because A produced more wins per dollar than B doesn't make A for B a bad trade for the Mets, it might even be a good trade if B produced more wins even at a far higher cost. i'm not sure how i'd do it though.I agree. Just stick with on-field performance. If someone helps you win the World Series, it doesn't matter if you paid him the league minimum or $20 million a year. Adding the money only complicates trying to evaluate the trade.