Vic Sage

"K" stand for KING IN THE NORTH!

I just went to see a double feature at the Film Forum, which is running a "spaghetti western" film festival. No, i didn't check out any of the Leone films; i've seen them all, and own them on DVD. No need to rush out and see them in the shitbox that is the FF. I wanted to see some i haven't seen, ones that aren't particularly available in the U.S., so I saw 2 films by the OTHER "Sergio", Sergio Corbucci, THE GREAT SILENCE (1969) and COMPANEROS (1970). COMPANEROS is a "zapata western" [like Corbucci's earlier MERCANARY (1968)], taking place during the Mexican Revolution. Franco Nero is "the swede", an amoral gun runner, and Tomas Milian is the bandito-turned-revolutionary who reluctantly partners with him to fetch "the professor" (Fernando Rey), a Christ/Gandhi-like non-violent revolutionary, at the behest of an opportunistic general who wants to use the professor to access a safe full of treasure. Fearing the professor might lead the peasants and students in a true revolution that would take over the oil industry, venal industrialists hire Jack Palance (a sniggering, pot-smoking, vulture-wielding killer) to kill the professor before he can be returned to the general by Nero and Milian. COMPANEROS is really a buddy movie of sorts, as Nero and Milian bond on the road with the professor, and are radicalized by the journey. Its darkly funny at times, violent always, and uses religious iconography to give its radical political ideology more emotional punch. But its ideology is muddled; it deifies the professor but also suggests that his non-violence is naive and out-of-date, even as the violent methods employed by Milian and Nero are doomed in the end, as they race headlong against overwhelming forces. There are some interesting things in the movie, but its visual style is pedestrian at best, and the Morricone score is not up to the master's usual standards. Milian is great, but the rest of the cast not so much. Nero in particular is given little development and lacks the Eastwoodian charisma necessary to pull off the character. Overall, a bit of a disappointment. THE GREAT SILENCE, however, is seriously wacked out. No less political and even more bleak, it is more extreme in every way. Here the hero is not only a man of few words, he is a mute, played by Jean Louis Trintingant with square-jawed good looks and a deadly Mauser he uses to kill bounty hunters. Klaus Kinski is the mad-eyed bounty hunter antagonist, and their conflict plays out in a small town and the surrounding snowy mountains of Utah (actually, Northern Italy), with the kind of windblown, off-white melancholic atmosphere you'd expect in that landscape. It is overlong and generally humorless, with ham-fisted dialogue (even by spaghetti western standards), yet the movie is stark, chilling and affecting nonetheless, with its dark ending unusually disturbing.

say it with me, 62... "Best. Player. Available." Now rinse, and repeat.

Where have you gone, Buddy Harrelson Mets nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo woo woo)

KING IN THE NORTH! His lordship Robert Aerys Dickey, with ICE in his veins, will thread the NEEDLE and make the WIDOW'S WAIL as he uses his LONGCLAW to hurl his deadly knuckler, the LIGHTBRINGER, at our foes from King's Landing. And how big a nerd am I, to spend time thinking up a sentence that includes the names of all the Valyrian steel wielded in GAME OF THRONES?

this is just nuts. where's Mike Bordick when we need him?

Edgy DC wrote: I would so give my heart to the man who bunted against the shift. Kingman was considered perhaps the most intransigent man of his time (at least after Dick Allen retired), and even he bunted against the shift a few times a year. Obviously it depends on the situation, but i think that, overall and generally speaking, a HR hitter that bunts for a single (even one highly likely to succeed because there's a shift on) is not just taking what the defense is giving him, but is giving the defense what it wants him to take.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And more and more, I'm thinking that if he goes down, he may never come back. I hate to say it, but there's a real possibility that he's washed up. But why? Was the injury was that profound, or valley fever is that significant? Or was he was just a flash in the pan to begin with? I don't buy any of that.

SEND DAVIS DOWN YOU FUCKERS!

my bad; i must've misremembered. Get Valdy back in the OF, in a platoon in RF. Put Duda at 1b. Put Davis on the bench (and sent down when Bay returns).

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, I spit on any such concerns the Mets might have. Move an actual athlete from the outfield to first while leaving a golem out there? That's Jerrythink, is what it is. yeah, this. Once Bay is activated, there's just no more excuse for Ike's continued existence on the major league roster. With Bay in LF, Torres in CF and Nieu/Hairston in RF, Duda (+Rottino) at 1b makes the most sense. as far as IF defense goes, where was that post where Ceetar proclaimed Valdespin an adequate everyday SS option, in Tejada's absence?

I didn't realize that jitteryjoo was customarily piled. Boxed, perhaps, or canned, maybe. or stored in a mason jar, most likely... especially if it was of the slobbering variety of jitteryjoo. Otherwise, it would just get everything too damp.

that's some funny shit right there, Grimmy.

5th round - Welch, Brandon Palm Beach CC, FL (RHP) 6'01" 185lbs DOB: 08/24/91 "Welch is one of the more intriguing prospects in the Draft. His fastball sits in the mid 90s, and he also has a hard slider. He has excellent command of both pitches and rarely walks a batter. However, Welch is not the biggest guy in the world, leading some scouts to think he will be a reliever at the next level. Either way, Welch's aggressive nature and pure stuff are what will get him drafted."

How come no Seawolves drafted, Mr.Depodesta? Besides the fact that these prospects, even the best ones, are so lacking in major league skills, who the hell follows college baseball? Do you guys follow it? Because not only do I not, but I don't even know anyone that follows college baseball. i do now, with my 'wolves winning the regionals, and on their way to Louisiana. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8011140/stony-brook-seawolves-crash-super-regional-party-ncaa-baseball-tournament "Although Kent State and St. John's are strong candidates, there might not be a better story in the NCAA tournament thus far than Stony Brook -- the only No. 4 seed to advance to the super regionals. The Seawolves won the Coral Gables Regional -- host Miami was eliminated after two games -- by defeating UCF 10-6 on Monday. Starting pitcher Tyler Johnson struck out five and allowed four runs in 6 1/3 innings." � Stony Brook became just the third ever No. 4 seed to advance to the super regionals since the NCAA went to the regional format in 1999. The Seawolves (50-12) also became the first team in the nation this season to win 50 games. They're also the first American East conference squad to win a regional since 1991.

true, and i had listed him that way originally (in the mediocrities list; i couldn't in good conscience put him on the "worst" list). It's just that he only managed PARTS of 2 seasons, and was never given the opportunity to manage one entire season from beginning to end, and that was the criteria i was using. plus this way i get 4 neat lists of 5 managers each to satisfy my anal list-making compulsion.

[u:2f1ix2xc]Best Mets managers:[/u:2f1ix2xc] Davey Johnson Gil Hodges Bobby Valentine Yogi Berra Casey Stengel [u:2f1ix2xc]Worst Mets managers:[/u:2f1ix2xc] Dallas Green Art Howe Jerry Manuel Jeff Torborg Willie Randolph [u:2f1ix2xc]mediocrities:[/u:2f1ix2xc] Terry Collins Joe Torre George Bamberger Wes Westrum Joe Frazier [u:2f1ix2xc]incompletes (less-than-full season):[/u:2f1ix2xc] Buddy Harrelson Frank Howard Roy McMillan Salty Parker Mike Cubbage

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Or maybe it's just because he's coming in after the worst manager in Mets history. Here's my personal list of the five worst Mets managers that I saw: Worst - Dallas Green (a moron and an asshole) Next - Willie Randolph ( a moron and a half) 3d - Jeff Torborg 4th - (tie) Art Howe; Jerry Manuel Mine's obviously a very small sample. Willie gets points for getting the Mets to the postseason, and i think he managed differently, and better, while there so that definitely bumped him up for me. Valentine, Randolph, Howe, Manuel. I wasn't really following closely enough for Green, and everyone else I was too young for. Valentine? VALENTINE? he's the top of your "worst Mets managers"? Wow. At first, i wanted you to explain that. but you know, i just don't think i want to hear it. Reading the tortured logic behind that assertion would be a bad way to start a work week.

hey guys, what's up? something happen? DOH!

Please give me a break. Please? Is was a horseshit description full of unjustified smug sarcasm directed at me. And I'm beyond tired of it and its like. whatever, dude. i hereby rescind the use of "salute" in honor of national donut day. instead i offer to replace it with the phrase: "mention for no apparent rhetorical purpose whatsoever". now THAT was smug sarcasm... see the difference?

The team has eight straight years of over seventy wins. If they make it a ninth this year (and it certainly looks like they will), that'll tie them for the longest such streak in team history. ...it's on the verge of tying the longest streak in their history. If that's "extremely poor" then the definition of extreme has changed. Winning percentage wise, I'd imagine the Wilpon-Katz-Wilpon team has been more successful than any managing ownership group in the team's history. Is "saluting" too strong a description? Ok. However you'd like to characterize it, it seems to me you're using "the streak" to rebut or at least blunt the anger directed at the Wilpons' ownership, but i think it is evidence in support of that anger.

Death to modifiers! Yes, i agree, "extremely poor" is inaccurate; i think "poor" covers it well enough. In the 11 full seasons since our WS loss to the MFYs in 2000, we've had 8 seasons as total non-factors (finishing from 3rd to 5th), 2 frustrating near-misses and 1 post-season appearance. This year? We'll see. And what this record signifies to me is over a decade of suckitude (albeit not "extreme suckitude"), with 1 post-season peekaboo that ended in heartbreaking fashion. If you want to salute this streak of 70+ win seasons as if its some sort of accomplishment, then knock yourself out.

it's not like he walked out to play for more money elsewhere. he got traded, and we got a good prospect for him. are people really still cheesed about the Wainwright K? It was a hellacious curveball. get over it. Or that he had the temerity to get injured after setting the record for HRs in a season? Jeezus... he ain't a child molester, folks. He's probably the top CFer in Mets history. Rise and clap, then sit down and shut up.

70 wins is a pretty low threshold for "lackluster". I'd say 80 wins is "lackluster" or "disappointing"; I'd refer to 70 wins as "playing like shit".

as i noted in another thread, it is exactly that approach (widely criticized by Darling, Ojeda and others in the media) which has allowed our punchless, speedless lineup to generate enough runs to be in the upper 3rd of offenses in the NL, while our run prevention is in the bottom 3rd, thanks to our crappy bullpen and our manager's indiscriminate use of them.