Vic Sage

it was ok; not much more than that. the difference between this and THE CANDIDATE, in which Redford's idealistic young politician is co-opted by the candidate's amoral political operative, is that this presents an idealistic young political operative co-opted by an amoral politician. I preferred THE CANDIDATE. by a lot.

i understand the frustration over this type of "hijacking"; your trying to have a rational conversation about X and people keep interrupting with shouts of Y, Y, Y! But i reject the comment that the Wilpon bashing is irrelevant. The Wilpon financial problems hang over any discussion of this year's team; they affect discussions about the roster, the minors, speculation about FAs, trades, the stadium... i can't think of a topic about the team that isn't relevant to its financial resources (or lack thereof) one way or another.

count me in, too.

a terrific movie, though a bit disjointed. the first 20 minutes and last 10 minutes comprise one story, and the middle 1.5 hours are another. But the framing story is necessary to set up the whole trilogy. Frankly, i found the framing story more interesting than the serial killing nazi story it encompasses, which i thought was kind of predictable. The last 10 minutes could have been fleshed out into a pretty good thriller all by itself. The performances are terrific, the direction chilling, art direction evocative... the opening title sequence is, in and of itself, one of the best music videos i've ever seen. Mara deserves an Oscar.

Ceetar wrote: ...if both Santana and Bay become ! this team will actually be fairly competitive. yeah, i guess that depends on your definition of "competitive". If both give us 80% or so of their career averages, i think we'll be a .500 team, but still nowhere near the playoffs. If one approaches that level and the other remains marginal while tying up ABs or IPs, then we'll be significantly less than a .500 team. If both come up short again, we'll be at the bottom of the NLEast barrel.

i could easily see Torres end up batting 7th-8th (with Tejada and Murphy at the top of the order) if he doesn't hit well initially, and being replaced completely if he continues his decline. Whereas Bay is going to get stuck in the middle of our lineup come hell or high water. I'd say his production is the biggest "?" and "!" in the Mets lineup, and will determine the productivity of the "O", while Santana's health will determine the "D".

Certainly true, which is why I said he is behind those 4. He is MILES ahead of Rivera, he may have been the "best closer ever" but to me that's like being the "best punter ever", I don't think Rivera is comparable to any hall-worthy starting pitcher. so you would exclude relievers from the HOF on principle? really? Then, presumably, DHs are excluded, too, i guess, right? so you would banish Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, deeming them not worthy of CONSIDERATION? Not to mention E.Mart, Molitor, and the upcoming candidacy of Frank Thomas? I agree that the limited nature of their contribution makes the bar higher for them, but the point is you wouldn't compare Rivera to any other hall-worthy starting pitcher, you'd compare him to the other relievers of his era. It's a job major leaguers perform on a team (more important now than ever). I understand that you would not give relievers the points you'd give guys who pitched at a high level for 200+ IP every year, but i don't think you exclude him from consideration on principle. There are some relatively weak hitting defensive players in the HOF; they are not excluded because they didn't put up HOF worthy stats with their bats, their bats are simply put in context with their glove. By the way, Jan Stenerud is in the football HOF. so they let kickers in, when they're good enough to make an impact with their leg that outweighs their lack of impact the rest of the time. And if ever there was a reliever who meets that standard, it's Mario Rivera, loathe as i am to say so.

Nymr83 wrote: Vic, I don't disagree that he may be in a lower tier (the Drysdale category if you prefer), but I don't see why he shouldn't get your vote along with those other guys. If you think a guy is a hall of famer, why not put him on your ballot now? well, since i don't get a vote, what does it matter to you? But speaking theoretically, the HOF isn't just binary (in or out) to me; it's hierarchical. Otherwise, one would be saying that Phil Rizzuto is equivalent to Honus Wagner and, you know, they're just not. So voting for 2nd tier guys when so many 1st tier guys are still waiting outside can obscure the impact of my vote. For example, there are those voters with whom i disagree who see Schilling as a "no-brainer" and E.Martinez as unworthy because he was a DH (holding his lack of fielding opportunity against him in an way that pitchers' hitting is NOT held against them), or won't vote for Piazza and Bagwell because of unfounded suspicions, and so my vote for lesser HOF candidates like Schilling could boost their vote total over candidates i feel are more deserving. While, as i said, i wouldn't complain if Schilling got in eventually, I WOULD complain if he got in if Piazza or Bagwell or, yes, even E-Mart did NOT. Because that waters down my conception of greatness and the elitism that the HOF is supposed to represent. Schilling will have 15 years of eligibility and then an indefinite period for consideration by a vet committee. He can wait.

Vic Sage wrote: with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer. If those things matter to you (to me, they are also sort of summaries of other people's opinions) he's got wow, nice way to purposefully misrepresent my point. i said a guy with a little over 200+ wins and ... "with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer." Since the baseline point was 200+ wins, not the "peripheral paraphanalia" (sorry for the misspelling), to spend a lengthy post highlighting additional paraphanalia that's even MORE peripheral (frat awards? rotary club? I'm sure there were BSA merit badges you overlooked, too), is just blather. If those things matter to you (to me, they are also sort of summaries of other people's opinions) he's got yes, those awards are summaries of other people's opinions -- but they are the opinions of people who actually vote for HOF, not the rotary club. so in forming my own opinion of a player's HOF candidacy, i look beyond stats to an understanding of how the player was perceived during his career in his own time. It is often there that a rationale can boost a guy with 215 wins to the HOF. But that case can't be made easily for Schilling either. I won't get into unwarranted PED suspicions; i don't think its fair for him or Piazza or Bagwell. But i'm not going to give him bonus points for community service awards either; i think that's just PR bullshit and mostly irrelevant. Schilling had a very high peak with a track record of post-season greatness (and i did note his post-season MVPs, which you felt compelled to list as though i overlooked them) to bolster low career totals. He also had long trenches of utter irrelevance throughout his career,, and didn't collect any of the personal hardware generally cited to boost his case. IN MY OPINION, his career bespeaks a 2nd-tier HOFer of the Drysdale variety at best, who i might vote for in a weak field but isn't worthy of my vote with so many 1st-tier options available.

i'm not sure i know what your talking about with regard to movies. I don't give my opinion about movies? the whole movie sub-forum is littered with my opinions about movies. anyway, my opinion about Schilling is that a guy with a bit over 200 wins over a 20 year career, with No MVPS, CYs, ROYs, or other such periperal paraphalia, has got an uphill battle to convince me that he's a HOFer. Upon closer analysis of his stats, however, i can see the case for him. -11 seasons in the top 10 in Pitcher's WAR, WHIP and K/BB ratio -10 seasons top 10 in ERA+ and K/9ip - a remarkable post-season career including post-season MVPs He was a guy that, though he established himself early, had an unremarkable 1st decade, and then dominated in his early-mid 30s. But unlike Morris, Ws weren't the totality of his accomplishments; his peripherals all show a guy who was totally dominant when healthy. But health was an issue throughout his career and can't simply be ignored. If push came to shove, i'd probably vote "yea", in a weaker year where i didn't already have 6 guys on my ballot. If he were to make it in, it wouldn't upset me. He'd be a Drysdale type HOFer, just like he was Drysdale to the Big Unit's Koufax. And that ain't bad. At any rate, he's lighyears better than Big Jack. But you got me to come around on Trammell over the years, so don't give up on me.

Yeah, I'm not so interested in his categorization as a borderline candidate, but that you place him on the dark side of the border. I place Schilling on the darkside of my own personal non-existent ballot; I don't think he's a lock (hence, borderline) but i do think he's got a shot because he's a "big game pitcher". A winna, dontcha know! he'll get the Jack Morris vote and then some, because he's better than Morris.

and he's got the legend of the bloody sock going for him. He's a "winnner", you know. But i still think he's a borderline candidate.

[u:yx2pvcf9]My ballot:[/u:yx2pvcf9] Bagwell Biggio Raines Piazza E.Martinez Trammell [u:yx2pvcf9]Predictions:[/u:yx2pvcf9] HOFers - Craig Biggio, Tim Raines [u:yx2pvcf9]why these guys will fall short:[/u:yx2pvcf9] Edgar Martinez - a DH Larry Walker - played in pre-humidor Colorado Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza - totally unsubstantiated PEDs suspicions Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa - substantiated PED usage [u:yx2pvcf9]these guys are (rightly or wrongly) viewed as borderline:[/u:yx2pvcf9] Alan Trammell Jack Morris Lee Smith Fred McGriff Curt Schilling Dale Murphy [u:yx2pvcf9]Bye-bye:[/u:yx2pvcf9] Steve Finley Julio Franco Shawn Green Roberto Hernandez Kenny Lofton Don Mattingly Jose Mesa David Wells Bernie Williams

Belt plays OF, too, so they better take their limited allowance and buy themselves a bat to support that pitching staff. They can swoop in here and get Prince for way under market value, since there is, apparently, no market for Fatman Jr.

i understand why some writers would choose not to vote for those actually used steroids (by admission, or testing, or naming in the Mitchell report), but to withhold votes from a guy like Bagwell, about whom there is literally NO evidence or even accusation of PED use, simply because he was big and hit HRs in the astrodome, is so exceptionally unfair as to make such voters unfit to wield a vote. And it does not bode well for Sam Champion's buddy, Mr. Piazza, in the future.

_____ have heart! miles and miles and miles of heart!

i have no problem with this; we needed a RHed bat / CF backup, and he comes cheap.

finally caught up with this one on netflix. pretty disappointing, considering the premise and talent involved, and the overrating it generally got from the press. take a mediocre "the airforce has captured an alien" movie (or X-FILES episode), mix liberally with Spielbergian coming-of-age characters and parent/child dysfunction themes, throw it against a background of disaster movies and other 70s cultural detritis, without a genuine surprise, plot twist, or original notion anywhere in the vicinity, then shake it up and spew it out. feh.

Edgy DC wrote: Daily News saying Selig ain't retiring. That's what Khadafy said.

didn't see it in IMAX... maybe that would've made a difference for me, but i doubt it. I hated the 1st one, found the John Woo sequel perversely entertaining (now THAT'S a good bad movie), the 3rd one has been completely forgotten and i forgot this one as i walked out of the theater. and not a minute too soon. yes, some great set pieces, strung together by almost nothing.

fman, you fkill me.

Willets is taking the long way to the lounge, but he's due shortly. WP, you might want to swing by and pick up marathon and attgig on your way over. Otherwise, Chiron will have to make 3 trips to ferry you guys over... and that can run into signficant coinage.

we got Fairy and Mole in da house! join da conga line, bitches! wahooooooo.......

you bring an ox to my suite and call it crudit�. And ox blood to wash it down. That's my food and drink allowance, bitch. Lee Harvey, your a madman. I want to party with you, Cowboy. it's an educated assumption, and one i'm fairly confident in. Especially given that the Mets will exist in 2018. that statement indicates a fairly UNeducated assumption, or set of assumptions. Yes, it is likely the Mets will exist in 2018, but not at all a foregone conclusion that they'll be owned by Wilpon & Co, or anybody else who invests in the team under their stewardship. They could all get wiped out in a bankruptcy proceeding. And their is no way the Wilpon group could guarantee an investor otherwise, unless this "investment" is merely a priority loan that would get paid back first, but i don't think the banks they are currently in hock to up to their fucking eyeballs would ever allow them to offer such terms to any third parties. No, this is purely a vanity purchase, like a yacht with gold toilet seats. Wait. I take that back. A Yacht has actual value; gold toilet seats can be melted down, or at least shat through. These are just pimped out season ticket holders with a shot of getting their money back (plus 3%) in 6 years, but not necessarily a good shot. No educated investor looks at this and says "whoa, Nelly, where do i sign?" This is for stupid rich fanboys looking to blow some bucks to say they own the Mets, and maybe get Mr. Met for the their kid's bar mitzvah. I assure you, Einhorn-types look at this bullshit and laugh.

warrrrriorrrrs... come out to play-ayyy.... Ceetar, Willets... we're running low on Mead. Could you guys do us a favor and harvest some fresh honey?