metsmarathon

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I like that they kept the Home Run Apple -- not just added it to the new stadium, but kept the original one instead of selling it. It's a nice focal point an place for people to pose. yes! this! home run apple all the way!

you know what we need? a way for kids to run to home plate and then be allowed to enter the goddamn gift shop afterwards. that's what the fuck we need. also the 5k. and any other running-themed fan-friendly things. regarding the confetti, i think that could work. or it could end up awful. one of the two. i think mostly it would be a juxtaposition of two so very different architectural themes that would be simply awful. but somebody should digitally mock it up just in case. i'd like to see some attempt at a return of the neon players. i'm not sure exactly how or where, but it needs to happen. maybe on the backsides of some lighting towers...? or as a permanent art installation around the stadium. hmm. i actually like that. i think a nice thick ribbon of steel formed in teh shape of the neon players, monstrously tall like 30 or 40 feet high, arrayed around the stadium akin to the original shea placement, would be pretty sweet. ... the baseball cards is brilliant. hell, you could even build in a post-game ceremony for newly metted players, or celebrate the addition at the next home game. i wonder if there's a suitable space available for such a tribute... the player regalia is brilliant, too. i would so love to see that. i'm sure paul lukas would love it too.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: G-Fafif wrote: How much would have dividers in the proletariat men's rooms cost anyway? Not installing them was a subtle dismissive "eff you" to the people who couldn't buy seats in the fancier sections. Or maybe-- just maybe-- it was a subtle welcome to make everything in the new place into a communal, convivial experience. i thought everybody likes to see the dicks of the people whizzing next to them. is... is that just me...?

anything and everything that mr. met touches. the apple.

no longer teaming with nyrr to offer the run to home plate, most likely due to shortsighted stadium design. building a stadium with a lack of artistic and architectural vision and detail. building a stadium that instead looks like a knockoff of a disney stadium.

i very much like the idea of a SNY radio monolith. make it happen already! AM! FM! XM! PM! all the M's!!!

say what you will about the designs and what not, but the wilpons have been at the fore with the whole americanized baseball hats to benefit the veterans thing. and while it was somewhat wrongheaded in terms of its execution, the jackie robinson thing is a nice and good thing to do. plus, there's baseball in brooklyn, and that's a good thing, right?

the one thing i'll miss most is always knowing how close and how serious the thunderstorms are. you can't get that kind of info on the FM dial.

that bob gibson fella was good. he's probably in there.

steve carlton (wow, two willie mccoveys! how did they tell them apart?)

oh, but i am. i'm stacked with good pitching prospects, and my hitters will still mostly be below market value, even after you savages bitterly adjudicate your salary arbitrations.

stompy stompy stompy. i think it'd be kinda cool if i was able to snag a 90 by the end of the year. we'll see. not leading in OBP anymore really stings.

i tend to think that you need to treat starting pitches like you would distance runners (and perhaps relievers/closers as sprinters). the only way to run long is to train long.

well, i htink one of hte things that's indirectly captured in citing hte hall of famers is that, if you do let your pitchers just pitch and throw 300 innings a year, you'll end up getting a hell of a lot more value out of hte healthy ones than you would if you limited them, and would get seemingly no benefit from limiting them. and, for those pitchers who would break down anyways, you'd still get no benefit from limiting them. and then there's the argument that limiting them is damaging them moreso than unlimiting them, and that by unlimiting your pitchers you would be encouraging them to have better mechanics and perhaps be better pitchers instead of just harder throwers, and you'd see benefit there as well.

clooney was a very good bruce wayne. i'll grant that. and i'm sure the material prevented him from really making any hay with the batman side of things. batman & robin was meant to be a sillier, less serious, certainly not dark at all take on things, and for that reason, all i get from a clooneybat is a flat, inert goofiness. maybe if brad pitt had played robin the movie would have worked... and ultimately that's what i fear we'd get with ben affleck - a flat inertness. in clooney's case it was borne of hte material. in affleck's i worry it will be borne of the actor. the stage is certainly set for him to fool us all. if he can truly pull it off, i feel it would be a great launching pad for the remainder of affleck's career. not that he really needs any help - its just that popular opinion of him (mine included) can't help but shake his gigli.

technically, shouldn't schierholz be out? he was just inside the baseline when he was hit, and so, technically, was outside the baseline and should have been called out for intereference. unless i totally don't understand the interferenec rules and hte silliness of the first base base line.

i, myself, can't shake a george clooney vibe.

Zvon wrote: Logo looks kool. For me this all hinges on who's gonna play Batman. ben affleck. damnit.

sorry, i've fallen off hte wagon of late. getting slammed at work makes it hard to catch up. don't these people have priorities?! hopefully by friday i may be participating again.

i don't get the tejada suspension... he failed two tests this season (after having failed a prior test that carried no real punishment). why wasn't he suspended immediately after the first test, presumably in april? i assume he was notified of the failure, right? but why did it take until after he failed the second test to be punished for both? or is mlb setting up the scenario where they can string together multiple violations into a single bigger punishment. like they're trying to do with arod. was tejada even notified of the first failure? the timing of it all seems very fishy. also, its very convenient since it comes out after he hits the 60-day dl.

i still fail to see how or why arod should be punished for more than 50 games. he failed an off-the-record, not-for-score test years back. he's not yet tripped the 50 day suspension (unless suspensions are to be given out for each instance of usage, not each failed test, which would be bullshit), so anything he's done should be counted as a first offense. he attempted to distract, evade, discourage, and befuddle the official mlb investigation. so did melky cabrera. are we to believe that no other player who was on teh 100-player list from way back when has never popped a positive? he violated, presumably, the confidentiality of the CBA. is that a suspensable offense? if so, it should be administered separately, no? but he's a dick and nobody likes him. ok. ban him for life.

well, heaven forbid they call the game accoridng to the published rules...

yes, kiddie 7. the kiddie movie bar is unfortunately rather low.

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And then there's the whole thing about MLB deciding on the reviews but having to rely on the local feed(s) for the evidence. Not all teams televise every game and can we always rely on the local feeds, not to hold back an angle that might be detrimental to their team, especially in cases where the team and station are owned by the same people? "Minor" things like those are why the simple pro-replay argument of--"well if it corrects just one bad call then it's worth it"--doesn't paint the whole picture. supposedly there is a complicated 'add cameras' process that's going to cost like 50million. oh, god, i hope mlb has the money to be able to afford it!

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Wow, the main character is a crop duster and there are no fart jokes. That must've taken some restraint. seriously. i'm rethinking my 6 rating. for a kids movie to not be aggressively stupid or fart jokey, and only be somewhat weakly plotted and character underdeveloped, and have wonderful visuals, is something to be celebrated. when this comes out on DVD, i won't mind owning it and allowing it into the rotation, and sitting down with minimm (and the �mm's) to watch it. i'm upping it to 7.