Vic Sage

Edgy DC wrote: A scale of four stars or five? 1) Green Lantern 2) Thor 5 star scale: GL: [*1/2 - **] The script was a total disaster, but i actually liked Ryan Reynolds more than i usually do, and they got alot of the geeky stuff right. THOR: [**1/2 - ***] the Asgardian stuff was great, the Earth-bound stuff kind of lame. Overall, it was a little disappointing for me, but not bad.

Edgy DC wrote: God? Really? Then I will rephrase. I wanted to know if your enjoyment (and yours alone) was at all affected by the relative glut of recent superhero movies --- the magic made less magical by it's increased relative availability. Because we went to Thor and Lantern at my wife's suggestion. I warned her that the potential for suckitude was high. We each disliked them both, and both disliked them each, and now I'm not sure I could drag her to Captain 'Merica, despite my interest in him being far greater than those other two costumed big shots. my enjoyment was not affected, at least not that i'm aware of. I could watch superhero movies all day every day, and they each would rise or fall on their own merits, one having no conscious affect on the other. I mean obviously i could see where, having seen alot of action movies, you might be in the mood for something lighter, or heavier even. i just don't think superhero movies, per se, are more or less likely to suck or more or less bound by genre convention than any other kind of movie, such that i'd feel particularly gluttenous for having viewed a bunch of them in a relatively short period. But transmonk doesn't like anything with unicorns, so everybody's got their own tolerance for stuff. As far as quality goes, this was WAY better than GL, better than THOR, and perhaps not quite as polished overall as the last X-MEN, if that gives you any help. CA is more of an old-fashioned, square jawed hero tale, with a terrific performance by Chris Evans, and some good supporting bits by Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones. The bad guy from MATRIX and V FOR VENDETTA plays the villain here with typical over-the-top histrionics, and the wrap up does feel rushed and incomplete, but overall i thought it was more heartfelt, contemplative and corn-fed (but in a good way) than any superhero movie since this director's adaptaton of THE ROCKETEER, which had a similar vintage feel and quality.

Rank them in your order of preference. Here's my list so far: X-MEN:1ST CLASS - **** CAPTAIN AMERICA - ***1/2 THOR - *** GREEN HORNET - **1/2 GREEN LANTERN - ** PRIEST - * still to come -- COWBOYS & ALIENS ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

i swear to god i was just trying to answer your question, and realized in the middle of trying to do so, i wasn't sure what you were asking. Apparently, i'm an ocelot. or a black-capped chikadee. which is fine. i've been called worse. today, even. wheee! [still taking it easy]

wait... what just happened?

i thought i was taking it easy. this is me, taking it easy. wheeee!

Edgy DC wrote: Does the comic book movie glut affect of the impact of the Captain? i'm not sure i understand the question. Are you asking if it affects CAPTAIN AMERICA in particular, as opposed to any other superhero/action type movies, because its kind of a dated character or something? Or just that it's yet another superhero movie after a number of other superhero movies this year, some of which were not particularly good (yes, GL, i'm looking at you!), so this one is less likely to have the impact it would have were it being released in a relatively superhero-free zone? And by "affect the impact", do you mean hurt box office? or dampen critical response already numbed by the genre? or simply lessen audience anticipation, however quantified? at any rate, it pulled in $65m its opening weekend, which i think is comparable to X-MEN, THOR and GL. So the "glut" of summer SH movies doesn't seem to have kept anybody away so far, and the critics liked it better than THOR and GL (if not quite as much as X-MEN), and as for audience response, I don't know how to quantify accept anecdotally. also, the assertion that there is a "glut" is somewhat confusing, in and of itself. Its summer. SH movies are action movies. Would you say there is a "glut" of dramas in the fall? or a "glut" of comedies? Certainly, technology has made SH movies more producible and so more prevalent in the action/sf/fantasy genres, but with 70+ years of backlogged material to draw on, i'd hardly call 4 SH summer pics a "glut".

i'm sure they could be plucked, if a team were willing to overpay for them. But Sandy isn't just going to dump them for bodies. And that's fine with me.

Saw it with my son; we both enjoyed it.

the Mets should run a promotion to pay off Bay's contract, where at each home game, fans can pay 5$ to come out of the stands and strike out Bay. They'd make enough to buy him out by the end of the year.

When I first heard the "not enough power to play a corner infield position" I reminded folks that's what they said about Wade Boggs, too. yeah, but Boggs came up and immediately established himself, with an OB% consistently over .400. You do that, you can play a corner. hell, you can play anywhere. The problem for Murphy isn't a lack of "power" (he's got power, just not citified HR power, which few have). His problem has been, until the last 2 months, a lack of consistent production of a level high enough for the positions he can reasonably handle (1b/3b). Those positions are also capably manned in NY by Wright & Davis. So the question is, if he stays with the Mets, is he a supersub, or is he a starting 2bman? I would think the only way to know is to PLAY him at 2b everyday and live with the consequences until you've made that determination. If his recent production represents a new and consistent level of production, then he's Jeff Kent/Dan Uggla, with fewer HRs but higher BA and a robust overall OPS, and so you live with the glove. But if he turns back into a pumpkin and reverts to a LHed Tim Teufel, then maybe he's really a UT guy. Which is not a bad thing to have either.

Beltran will be 35 in April, at the start of next season. He's got like no cartilage in his knee. Alderson isn't going to re-sign him. Move on. S'long Carlos, and thanks for all the fish.

.280/20hrs, traded at the deadline. I missed on the position, too, but otherwise in the ballpark,so to speak.

Ceetar wrote: yeah, 1 walk. 80 PA or so, not a tiny sample at least. his BABIP is the same via the splits and he's actually hitting more fly balls lefty. 1 walk is not good, but if he can maybe be a wee bit more patient maybe he can capitalize and yank some of them out of the park? He was maybe a 15hr guy in a fair park... but in this park? I'd just as soon he not try to jerk anything out, seeing how trying has damaged both Bay and Wright the past 2 years. Let him get on at a .350%+ clip, with a .450%+ slugging rate, and he'll be valuable.

Yes, Parnell having to face Pujols with two on in a 2-run game hurt his development because it was in the 8th inning. well at least we agree on something.

Mike Vail had a 23-game hitting streak once. Relax. In the meantime, he's still hitting (not many BBs, HRs or SBs,but line-drive doubles are good, too) and playing a decent 3b. When Wright returns, I'd like to see Murph back at 1b, until he cools off, with Evans getting the occasional start against LHPs. It looks like Turner is settling in at 2b, at least for now, but will they eventually split time? Depends on Davis's ankle, Turner's bat and Murphy's glove. Ultimately, i still see Murphy as a useful super-sub.

yeah, i'm sure they'd give us Worley and Dominic Brown for his massive contract.

TransMonk wrote: Maybe. I think he's the right choice anyhow given his experience. the "right choice" to do what, exactly? To help the Mets develop their next closer? No? Oh, you mean to win more games THIS year. Well, even that's a coin flip, given his peripherals (as compared to Parnell and Beato), but that can't be what Sandy has in mind for the balance of the 2011 season. He's rebuilding Izzie's value for a deadline deal. Otherwise, this is just a stupid waste of valuable time in the development of closers for this organization's future.

I can't believe there is any discord on this move. there really isn't very much discord here, other than Ceetar's "lack of excitement." Ceetar wrote: ...I'm not going to get excited about the offseason until it's upon us. Belief in a playoff berth or not, to start dividing up the salaries towards some sort of future acquisition is writing off this season as uninteresting and not worth watching. It's baseball, it's back in two days. This is a fallacy of false alternatives. You can be as excited as you want about baseball's imminent return; how does that in any way limit your ability to appreciate your team's management making a move that improves their chances for the future? Your excitement for baseball THIS year drives out appreciation about improving our chances for NEXT year? I don't believe that's true, and I don't think you do either. It seems to me that you just obviously feel that the minimal difference between K-Rod's potential performance through the balance of this season (over Izzy/Parnell/Beato, or whomever gets those KRod innings) is the difference in us making a post-season run, or the $17.5m option is not really an issue for next year's team, because their payroll is (or should be) unlimited. You may call that "optimism", but I call that the kind of magical thinking that sets an organization up to fail indefinitely.

i hereby renounce my title as TiTTS founder, and pass the crown to the Cee-man. Remember to uphold the TiTTS with pride.

Vic Sage wrote: want nothing and you can never be disappointed. you may now rub my belly for luck.

want nothing and you can never be disappointed.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Vic Sage wrote: ... i don't have to delude myself with pennant hopes in order to enjoy watching a Mets game. Wow. About as profound as anything I've ever read here. not aiming at profundity. But as an atheist, i long ago gave up magical thinking and have come to appreciate life on its own terms without expecting any greater glory to justify any of it. I watch baseball for a variety of reasons, and investing in playoff hopes doesn't always have to be one of them. Otherwise, i'd have to either start skewing reality to justify my continuing interest or lose interest whenever post-season chances fade. Unwilling to do either, i've attempted to develop a greater understanding of the game itself, as an intellectual matter, and to appreciate its aesthetics for its own sake, and to share that understanding and appreciation with others... family, friends, the Pool.

depends on how they budget and account. But they may not amortize their operating costs in that way. In fact, a small-market team is unlikely to, working more on a cash-basis style of annual accounting, where profits from 1 year do NOT factor into increasing a team's budget for the following year. In other words, the $5m this year will help their bottom line THIS year. Next year, they'd still be staring down the barrel of a $17.5m closer, while trying to resign their slugging 1Bman. End of the world? No, nothing in baseball is "end of the world." But not a management situation i would envy, either, nor healthy for their ability to keep their nucleus together. I'm feeling like they made this deal to help their bullpen this year, and will be thrilled to be out from under next year's option.

Edgy DC wrote: I agree Beltran will hurt more, but he's got no contract for next year that we need to escape. So the pressure to shed him isn't nearly as acute, and there's no harm in waiting a week or two to see how things shake out. And it won't kill us to keep him. I don't think you need to pretend that there's a relationship between shedding Rodriguez and signing Reyes. There is. Agreed, mostly. But while it won't "kill us" to keep Beltran, there are "opportunity costs" involved in retaining him. If there are real prospects out there for the getting in the next few weeks, Alderson is obliged to maximize the team's assets. Holding onto Beltran to keep the fans with Ceetardian delusions happy (if there is no plan to resign him, with no ability to get draft picks if we don't) is exactly the kind of Wilponian decision-making i hope and expect Alderson to avoid.