Vic Sage

adequate family entertainment

to take the title. whoop de damn doo! I'd trade it for a meaningful game in Queens this weekend.

i gave away my "saturday plan" tix most of the 2nd half because: 1) my seats totally sucked, 2) the games totally sucked, 3) having to go on weeknights for a "saturday plan" totally sucked, and 4) i became bitterly disgruntled at Omar's mid-season failure to address any of the injury issues i'm not getting a plan next year unless 1) better seats are available and more reasonably priced than they were this year, 2) I don't have to buy weeknite games for a weekend plan, and 3) they fire Omar. well, if they give me 1 & 2, i guess i'd go even if they didn't fire Omar. But that's how i feel today.

thank you, edgy, for not participating in the Jeter myth machine. Knot, you should know better.

this whole KTE is a BOC.

she can put a spell on me anytime.

a few things: - not that it matters much, but since it was brought up, if someone wants to go thread searching, you'll discover discussions about Delgado in which CF and I thought picking up Delgado's option would be a mistake because, at age 37, he was as likely to repeat his terrible first half from 2008 as he was to continue his excellent 2nd half, and players at that age are more likely to break down; we were, instead, banging the drum for Texiera. I don't recall who else jumped on that bandwagon with us, but there was discussion of it here. And whatever else's Omar's multitude of shortcomings, an inability to land a big fish, even when competing with Yanks and BoSox, is NOT one of them. - saying Delgado was "a senior citizen that broke his hip" is a joke, not an attempt to describe the injury with scientific specificity. - for a guy like Dunn, who is customarily in the top 10 in the NL every year in both runs created and OPS+, to cost his team more runs than he creates with bad defense at 1b, he'd have to be playing the position with NO ARMS AND, INSTEAD, ATTEMPTING TO CATCH THE BALL WITH HIS ASSCHEEKS... which would probably have ended his career at some point, or certainly have caused a massive hemorroidal problem that would've DLed him indefinitely. - The notion that signing Dunn would've been a bad deal because it just would've made this year's lost season more expensive for Fred is logic that just makes my head reel. The fact that the Mets have suffered unpredented level of injuries and, therefore, would've been unlikely to contend this year anyway, should not absolve Omar from his decision-making in building this team. Here are just some of the decisions off the top of my head: * picking up Delgado's option (forgetting the lesson of Carlos Baerga) * counting on Murphy to repeat (forgeting the lesson of Mike Vail) * Re-signing Perez for big $ (forgetting the lesson of, well, Oliver Perez) * Putz was coming off serious arm injury; * Spending big money on not 1, not 2, but 3 closers, when closers are made, not born (and he'd already given away Heath Bell for nothing)(e.g., see Ryan Franklin); * Maine had injuries when we acquired him from Baltimore and had managed 1 full season (2007) in his career, and was coming off a injury-shortened 2008, but was counted on as the #2 starter, along with a rotation of unstable Ollie P, inconsistent Pelfrey and no 5th starter to speak of; * guaranteed contracts to Cora, Redding, Tatis, Marlon Anderson, Duaner Sanchez and Scott Schoenwiese ate up over $9m of 2009 team budget; * poor budget management didn't allow him to make any in-season adjustments to compensate for injuries; ok, i'm bored. i'll stop now.

Basically, i guess what i'm saying is that, for the Mets to have a good shot next year, they need to take that $30m in payroll coming off the books and reinvest it in 2 players: Holliday and Lackey. That's about what those 2 are going to get combined next year, though Fred might need to kick in a little more to close the deal. If they end up with Bay or Dye, and Bedard or Piniero, or worse yet, do nothing and count on "getting healthy" to be enough", I think we end up a day late and a dollar short.... again.

Wolfie, Freel has never played SS, at least not in the majors. He played a little in AA, over a decade ago... so he's probably as a much a SS as Tatis! and as for LWFS, --They'd have to trade for Crawford, really. He'd cost a bunch, but if he gives you what he's given TB... he's worth it. He'd also be ridiculously fun to watch in CitiField. forget it. its not happening. --I thought the same about Holliday... then I looked closer. In this "off" year, he has a wOBA of .388 (better than Werth, Ibanez and Damon... just below A-Rod, Justin Upton and Morneau), and that's after having a terrible March/April. Also, "protection" is a bit of a myth. AND even if you do believe in protection, the Cards lineup was so weak outside that they gave up a prime asset in Brett Wallace to shore it up. Also ALSO, Holliday is much better defensively than Jason Bay... and MUCH better than the other big-hitting options. Basically, this offseason, he's the best, safest bet for Mets offensive insurance. Holliday is so much better than anything they have now in LF, or could get, that its pretty much a no-brainer. but i'm just not convinced he'll be worth, in absolute terms, what he gets. I think i might rather put the money in a SP like Lackey, and take a cheaper option in LF, like Bay or Dye, until F-Mart is ready (if ever). But i could be convinced otherwise pretty easily. I certainly wouldn't be UNhappy if they got Holliday. --Bedard is not a player I love. But the injuries could work in our favor-- he'll come a lot cheaper than a player of his quality normally does. Same for someone like Sheets (still out there). We need some stability behind Santana. Bedard doesn't give you that. If you wanted to take a flyer on him AFTER signing Lackey, go right ahead. --Lackey could command Sabathia/Burnett/Lowe money. Could you live with a Pineiro, getting ground balls to a Reyes-and-Wright-led infield? If i thought Pineiro was a reliable option, i'd support that. But it just seems to me that, outside of Dave Duncan's magical influence, he could be another big ?? --Also, re: 1B vs. LF: we've got 3-4 credible platoon options in-house (Evans, Murphy, Davis... and Chris Carter?) for first; there are none, really in left. Also the LF market is much, MUCH deeper. Even if we want the top guy, the presence of Bay, Dye, et.al. should help keep Holliday's price semi-reasonable. 2 issues of definition: define "credible"... to me, it just seems like we have mediocre or unproven options at 1b, not "credible" ones. And define "semi-reasonable" price for Holliday... if he's enough to keep them from pursuing a top SPer, he's too much. If Bay or Dye could be had more cheaply, allowing room for a Lackey, rather than a Piniero, I'd rather go that way.

="bmfc1":1b96iugs]Winter '08-'09: Despite the need for a power bat in the OF, the Mets choose to turn LF to largely unproven Daniel Murphy. In the minor leagues, Murphy played 3B and 1B. In October and November of '08, the Mets had Murphy play 2B in the Arizona Fall League. Yet when the Mets opened the season, Murphy was in LF. Meanwhile, Adam Dunn was a free agent until February but the Mets ignored him, choosing to go with Murphy.[/quote:1b96iugs] They failed to sign Dunn, in part, because they probably saw him more as a 1Bman, and we'd already picked up the option on the old and injury-prone Delgado at that point. Murphy wasn't going to have to carry the offense... he'd be a nice young complimentary piece, but Delgado was counted on to be part of the offensive core of the team. That our season went down the toilet when a senior citizen broke his hip shouldn't have come as a shock. And when our GM did nothing to replace him, the team folded. We should have signed Texiera. metsmarathon Aug 26 2009 12:44 PM i think that not signing dunn (or teixeira), and signing ollie are the two biggest things omar had done wrong going into this season. but i do lend credence to the notion that castillo dropping that pop up was where it all went wrong. Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 12:46 PM This should be obvious, but Delgado has not demonstrated injury proneness nor has he broken his hip. If they saw Dunn only as a firstbaseman, they missed a lot. If they thought Murphy was a better bet in the outfield, so did they miss more. But neither of those are about Delgado. A better guess is Minaya had X amount of money to spend, and chose to spend it on a starter and a reliever. Benjamin Grimm Aug 26 2009 12:53 PM Delgado might very well have hit 35 homers this year, and been as productive as he was for most of last year. But even so, was it better to get one year of Delgado, or to get his successor in place? There's no Texiera on the market this year, but there was one last year. I was hoping the Mets would go for him, not so much for the sake of 2009, but for the sake of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 01:05 PM I guess it's better to have five years of Texiera, but it's not my money. I was thinking Dunn was within the Mets' budget and was a good investment of their dollars. He might have filled left and then slid to first as F-Bomb came on and/or Delgado faded. That's not really on the table now, and besides, based on what I've seen at the games I've been to, he's more of a liability at first than in left. metsguyinmichigan Aug 26 2009 01:14 PM I don't think there was any chance that Teixiera was going to sign with the Mets, especially when the Red Sox and Yankees were bidding up each other. Nor do I remember much of a call in these parts to focus on him. And all the people who were calling for Omar to sign Manny Ramirez need to apologize. And I think that while the Perez signing turned out poorly, the other option was way over-paying Derek Lowe. Didn't the Braves give him something like $60 million? The screaming after the season was about the bullpen, and he went out and signed the the best one out there and grabbed a second. I think the turning point of the season was the Beltran injury. If I remember, they were were holding on after losing Delgado and Reyes, but when they lost Beltran, it all seemed to slip away. The Castillo drop might have been the spiritual turning point, but I think the Beltran loss left Wright all alone in the lineup. As I said in regard to the Vaccaro spew, no team has the kind of depth to withstand what the Mets lost this year. You can absorb the loss of one or two of those guys, maybe. But that's it. And to have your replacements for those guys also go down -- and in some cases the replacements for the replacements -- you just can't prepare for that, nor can you expect them to. What sucks hardest is that they weren't just your 15-day or month-long injuries. Does anyone really think we'll see Reyes or Delgado back this year? I'm not even sure why they'd trot Beltran back, unless they want to test what he can tolerate without surgery. metirish Aug 26 2009 01:23 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 26 2009 01:24 PM I think I would like to get a consensus as to what the membership thinks is the # 1 reason for this mess. All the injuries is not what I am looking for Was it Beltran's injury Not signing Dunn Reyes Voodoo Indian shit Maybe I should throw a poll up after this thread has ran a few days. I will say that I remember several here were very vocal on Dunn , can't remember one person on Texeria.....all that means is that I have a rubbish memory. I think it's imperative that the Mets learn from this season going into mext. seawolf17 Aug 26 2009 01:24 PM Ah, who the hell are we kidding? Dunn would have been run over by the bullpen car if he was on this team. I want to agree with the Castillo pop-up, but that was more emblematic and symbolic than it was a turning point. The real turning point was the Citi Field Yankee sweep, followed by that awful road trip. Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 01:28 PM Yabbut, the Castillo pop would have been a key in returning the sweep and expunging it. As it was, didn't they come out the next day and lose 78-0 or something? The reality about Dunn is sadly that spending more money to get him this off season would have meant losing more money --- at least in 2009 --- as everybody else went down. metsmarathon Aug 26 2009 01:37 PM yeah, but i think that by signing dunn, that would've caused a butterfly to have flapped its wings ever so slightly differently, which would've generated somewhat slightly different winds that day, which would have tehn lofted different dust particles into the air, whcih would have interacted with teh sunlight in a different way, which would have opened up a rift in the fabric of space-time and caused the shovel to miss that one cache of pre-columbian relics, which would have prevented the mets from ever knowing that they had built citifield atop an indian burial ground, which would have prevented the weird indian voodoo shit that's befallen our beloved team. because as we all know, its only if you know you're building on an old indian burial ground that the indian ghosts fuck up your shit. they're not assholes, afterall. smg58 Aug 26 2009 01:46 PM Assuming the Mets didn't have any more money to spend, they would have had to have handled the offseason a lot differently to free up money for an extra position player, certainly somebody like Teixeira at a position they already had filled. Was Rodriguez so much of an improvement over the other much cheaper closers on the market? Should they have had as much confidence in JJ Putz's health that they had when they made that huge deal? I can understand balking on Derek Lowe (PS Minaya will be vindicated on that front), but didn't they know enough about Oliver Perez to not over-commit to him? They also have shown too much confidence too quickly in their minor league players. Murphy lulled the Mets into a false sense of security with his play after the call-up last year, but even then he was an exception. If guys begin the year in AA or lower, assume at least two years before they're major-league ready unless you know they have nothing left to prove in the minors. (That means no to Davis or Thole being part of next year's team.) Getting back to Murphy... he played second in Arizona, got hurt the first week in Puerto Rico, and came to camp having forgotten everything he learned about playing the outfield. Still, I think they would have contended without the injuries. The Mets were doing fine on Memorial Day. I don't regret missing out on anybody big in the offseason, except maybe Ibanez, and even he is coming back to earth. Manny would have been a massive PR disaster, and Dunn's glove takes away most of what his bat gives (and actually, he's even worse at first base than he's been in the outfield). Fman99 Aug 26 2009 01:50 PM This thread is more depressing than Angela's Ashes. metirish Aug 26 2009 01:54 PM ="Fman99"]This thread is more depressing than Angela's Ashes. Like Frank the Mets seem to have a dose of the consumption HahnSolo Aug 26 2009 01:57 PM On July 2, the Mets scratched out an extra inning win in a makeup game in Pittsburgh. it put them either within 1 or 1 1/2 games of the Phillies. The day is seared in my memory because it's the day my wife got sick. The next night, in CBP, Livan couldn't get anybody out, and the sweep was on. To me, the season ended on that Friday night. And if you want to blame anything on the off-season, I reiterate what some others have said in other threads. Omar bandaged up the problems of last year (bad pen, hole in rotation) without really shoring up the offense or the team's depth. HahnSolo Aug 26 2009 02:00 PM ="smg58":3njsggd4] and Dunn's glove takes away most of what his bat gives [/quote:3njsggd4] I know he's not Keith out there at first, but you don't really believe this, do you? I mean, his bat gives an awful lot. Gwreck Aug 26 2009 02:26 PM The pop-up was on Friday June 12th.. They won convincingly on Saturday but then Sunday the 14th was the game where Johan imploded and they lost 15-0. Then it was losing 2 of 3 to Baltimore and Tampa both. The final game against Tampa was Beltran's last. So if the popup wasn't *exactly* when the season went over the cliff, it was right around that time. Vic Sage Aug 26 2009 03:50 PM a few things: - not that it matters much, but since it was brought up, if someone wants to go thread searching, you'll discover discussions about Delgado in which CF and I thought picking up Delgado's option would be a mistake because, at age 37, he was as likely to repeat his terrible first half from 2008 as he was to continue his excellent 2nd half, and players at that age are more likely to break down; we were, instead, banging the drum for Texiera. I don't recall who else jumped on that bandwagon with us, but there was discussion of it here. And whatever else's Omar's multitude of shortcomings, an inability to land a big fish, even when competing with Yanks and BoSox, is NOT one of them. - saying Delgado was "a senior citizen that broke his hip" is a joke, not an attempt to describe the injury with scientific specificity. - for a guy like Dunn, who is customarily in the top 10 in the NL every year in both runs created and OPS+, to cost his team more runs than he creates with bad defense at 1b, he'd have to be playing the position with NO ARMS AND, INSTEAD, ATTEMPTING TO CATCH THE BALL WITH HIS ASSCHEEKS... which would probably have ended his career at some point, or certainly have caused a massive hemorroidal problem that would've DLed him indefinitely. - The notion that signing Dunn would've been a bad deal because it just would've made this year's lost season more expensive for Fred is logic that just makes my head reel. The fact that the Mets have suffered unpredented level of injuries and, therefore, would've been unlikely to contend this year anyway, should not absolve Omar from his decision-making in building this team. Here are just some of the decisions off the top of my head: * picking up Delgado's option (forgetting the lesson of Carlos Baerga) * counting on Murphy to repeat (forgeting the lesson of Mike Vail) * Re-signing Perez for big $ (forgetting the lesson of, well, Oliver Perez) * Putz was coming off serious arm injury; * Spending big money on not 1, not 2, but 3 closers, when closers are made, not born (and he'd already given away Heath Bell for nothing)(e.g., see Ryan Franklin); * Maine had injuries when we acquired him from Baltimore and had managed 1 full season (2007) in his career, and was coming off a injury-shortened 2008, but was counted on as the #2 starter, along with a rotation of unstable Ollie P, inconsistent Pelfrey and no 5th starter to speak of; * guaranteed contracts to Cora, Redding, Tatis, Marlon Anderson, Duaner Sanchez and Scott Schoenwiese ate up over $9m of 2009 team budget; * poor budget management didn't allow him to make any in-season adjustments to compensate for injuries; ok, i'm bored. i'll stop now. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 26 2009 03:56 PM ="HahnSolo":3sik436d]="smg58":3sik436d] and Dunn's glove takes away most of what his bat gives [/quote:3sik436d] I know he's not Keith out there at first, but you don't really believe this, do you? I mean, his bat gives an awful lot.[/quote:3sik436d] As per Fangraphs, smg's LITERALLY correct: Batting Runs Created, YTD: 38.8 Defensive Runs Saved, YTD: -28.2 (dead last among ML OFs this year) He's still been worth about 2 wins over replacement, and is being paid about what he's been worth ($9.4M, YTD) at market rates. MFS62 Aug 26 2009 04:01 PM Vic, don't be wishy-washy. What do you really think about Omar's decision-making? Later Nymr83 Aug 26 2009 05:28 PM ="Edgy DC":rpl4i1i1] If they saw Dunn only as a firstbaseman, they missed a lot. If they thought Murphy was a better bet in the outfield, so did they miss more. But neither of those are about Delgado.[/quote:rpl4i1i1] Just add on here, Dunn was a perfect fit, he could play the outfield in 2009 and then be moved to 1B when Delgado's contract expired if you felt that was where he belonged, he would have given the Mets flexibility in their 2010 shopping as well! as for "where did it go wrong" i'd point to 3 time periods: 1. offseason: Mets fail to get another bat 2. June: Mets are treading water not falling too far behind, but front office fails to reinforce the team before it can fade 3. July: Team falls apart from cumulative injuries MFS62 Aug 26 2009 05:41 PM If they make a movie of this season, it should be directed by Wes Craven. Later Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 09:32 PM ="Vic Sage":3gzpo6te]- saying Delgado was "a senior citizen that broke his hip" is a joke, not an attempt to describe the injury with scientific specificity.[/quote:3gzpo6te] You miss my more salient point here. Neither had he displayed any particular injury-proneness. The appeal of Texiera is clear. He's younger and more likely to maintain his health and productivity, but let's not distort the case against a good soldier. Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 09:37 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 27 2009 07:14 AM ="Nymr83":1izifb1m]="Edgy DC":1izifb1m] If they saw Dunn only as a firstbaseman, they missed a lot. If they thought Murphy was a better bet in the outfield, so did they miss more. But neither of those are about Delgado.[/quote:1izifb1m] Just add on here, Dunn was a perfect fit, he could play the outfield in 2009 and then be moved to 1B when Delgado's contract expired if you felt that was where he belonged, he would have given the Mets flexibility in their 2010 shopping as well![/quote:1izifb1m] Yeah, yeah. That's what I said pretty much exactly on page one. It's probably what I said over the winter. I certainly thought it. As for reinforcements, I can't imagine a trade --- acknowledging my prejudice ----that could have saved this ship, and I'd hate to think of the price that any half measure would have cost. Working and praying for the health of the disabled players seemed the best and last hope to me. I really wish there was more people on board with this point, but a GM does not particularly show his merit in making dazzling mid-season trades to save a fading campaign. But sportwriters love 'em. metsmarathon Aug 27 2009 06:52 AM i'd love to know what trade could've been made that would've saved the season, aside, perhaps, for trading our broken players for the healthy versions of themselves. and then, of course, the persistent knock against omar that our farm system sucks would truly come to fruition. metirish Aug 27 2009 06:56 AM ="metsmarathon":198kkavf]i'd love to know what trade could've been made that would've saved the season, aside, perhaps, for trading our broken players for the healthy versions of themselves. and then, of course, the persistent knock against omar that our farm system sucks would truly come to fruition.[/quote:198kkavf] It's a good point , the influx of injured players coming back never happened either. Benjamin Grimm Aug 27 2009 06:58 AM Yeah, there's no way that Omar could have traded himself out of this mess. You might argue that he could have done something before the mess became so large, but even if he had, it wouldn't have helped any. It's probably better that he did nothing. It's certainly good that he didn't make any desperation trades. (I do wonder what kinds of deals he was working on.) MFS62 Aug 27 2009 08:54 AM ="metsmarathon"]when they first dug the foundation for citi field, and found those pottery shards, arrowheads, and old indian bones, and still built the damned thing, the die was cast for this season. 'Thon, I mentioned that to a friend who is married to a Native American woman. I asked if there was anything that could be done to reverse a spell. This was his email reply: ]u're on your own on this one....i suggest a sacrifice at home plate...u have enough injured bodies that burning one more at the stake wouldn't make a big diff OK, so, who do we pick? Later metsmarathon Aug 27 2009 09:20 AM allyssa milano... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 27 2009 01:44 PM ="MFS62"]="metsmarathon"]when they first dug the foundation for citi field, and found those pottery shards, arrowheads, and old indian bones, and still built the damned thing, the die was cast for this season. 'Thon, I mentioned that to a friend who is married to a Native American woman. I asked if there was anything that could be done to reverse a spell. This was his email reply: ]u're on your own on this one....i suggest a sacrifice at home plate...u have enough injured bodies that burning one more at the stake wouldn't make a big diff OK, so, who do we pick? Later Burn Martinez-- JUST MAKE SURE YOU GET THE RIGHT ONE! Nymr83 Aug 27 2009 02:12 PM Shit. I had a whole long post and it got deleted when I accidentally closed the browser. heres the short version: the argument that the Mets were "beyond help" is in my opinion just 20/20 hindsight, there was a period of a month or more after the Delgado injury (which should have been a big "we need help sign") in which all other significant injured players besides Perez were expected back soon and in which the Mets were playing .500 ball and were only a couple of games out. On July 2nd after beating the Pirates in a makeup game the Mets were a game back from both philly and florida. The team wasn't beyond help for that month at least.

Chris Carter? Chris freakin Carter? A 26-year old AAAA LHed DH/1Bman? We've already got Murphy, who is 2 years younger and already a better glove at 1b (by all accounts) than Carter. Carter has more power, but not alot more, based on his minor league numbers. We would've been better off with the draft choices. We need an upgrade over Murphy, but it ain't Carter. Hopefully, Ike Davis will be the answer. But, unless the other prospect has more upside, the Wagner deal looks like a pure salary dump, which irritates me greatly.

i would suggest that, with the holes this team has, "utility infielder" should not be high on the list of concerns. That being said, i have no love for either Hernandez OR Cora, and would be grateful for any upgrade there. How about Jonny Lunchbucket's fave, Jerry Hairston?

That FA list sux. - forget Crawford; TB ain't gonna let him walk. - I think Holliday was a Coors hitter, exposed in the AL, now on a hot streak hitting behind or in front of Pujols. I wouldn't sink $20m/yr into him, but he may be the only bat available, and we need one; - Bedard is a permanent occupant of the DL; - Lackey is the one SP i would pursue; Ideally, we'd acquire power bats for 1b AND LF, but I'd settle for 1, and live with a platoon at the other. We also need a LHed catcher, unless they think Thole is ready. Mostly, however, we need 2 good starting pitchers, because we have nothing reliable after Santana. I'd settle for at least 1. lineup Reyes, ss Castillo, 2b Wright, 3b Beltran, cf Holliday or Bay, LF Francoeur, rf Murphy/Evans, 1b Thole / Santos, C bench: (6) Evans / Murphy Santos / Thole A.Hernandez Pagan Tatis Carter SP: Santana Lackey Pelfrey Perez Niese / Maine (if he comes back) pen:(6) F-Rod Parnell Feliciano Stokes Green Figeroa / Nieve / Misch

Felix Doubrant is the only current Seadog on the Red Sox 40-man roster (as of 8/16/09). I'd be happy if he were one of the players... he looks like a 21-year old LH power pitcher.

You don't suppose they would have given us Reddick, do you? That would be too much to hope for.

would it have been worth more to the Mets to spend the $2m and have 2 high draft picks, or save the money and get 2 "mid-level" AA prospects? Well, first, we need to see which prospects they are; secondly, i trust the Sox talent eval dept more than the Mets. That being said, i hope we didn't fail to maximize Wags' long-term value just to save some short term $.

if he's offered and accepts arbitration, is there any rule preventing him from being traded immediately thereafter? A 1-year closer for $8.5m is not a bad asset to have, for dealing purposes. Better yet, trade Frankie's deal and keep Wags.

i don't see Kotchman as an upgrade over Murphy.

metirish wrote: What's with the intentional misspelling of both words? , smug fuck that Tarantino . it's not about smugness... although he certainly is. This is not exactly a remake but a film inspired by a 70s Italian B-movie correctly translated as "Inglorious Bastards", which itself was an attempt to cash in on the DIRTY DOZEN. So he seems to have wanted to evoke the original title while not emulating it... same as the film itself does. Also, thematically, the misspelling is evocative but not factually accurate, just as the film is, in its creation of an "alternate history" of WWII. Narratively, it's a phrase created by the Brad Pitt character (the similarly "misspelled" Aldo Raine, based on b-movie star Aldo Ray) who can be read as a nearly illiterate hillbilly, with the phrase carved on his rifle. The movie has a lot of hits, but some misses. I'll take KILL BILL (either 1 or 2), and PULP FICTION over this one. But, despite its flaws, its a spaghetti-western style WWII revenge fantasy with some brilliant touches, and i found it highly entertaining. Its intertwining, episodic parallel story threads works as a structure, but fails to allow the Basterds themselves to get developed as characters we should care about, especially Pitt, who is funny but 1-dimensional and cartoonish. Still, the opening sequence, with its Morricone music, shot compositions, themes and even the narrative itself, is a remake of the opening of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. If QT had been able to maintain that sensibility, it would've been amazing film. However, the subsequent sequences vary greatly in tone and style, so the whole thing feels more like a mishmash than a coherently articulated concept. other great performances: the Nazi colonel Landa is a fascinating, complex villain. and the escaped Jewish girl Shoshanna is a doomed beauty. But everybody else is pretty limited. Aside from the appropriate Morricone music, there is a major musical misstep in the use of the Moroder/Bowie song from CAT PEOPLE remake ("Putting Out fire") that is jarringly anachronistic. there are some other self-conscious cinematic devices i found particularly annoying as well: the pointless use of a Samuel Jackson voice-over to explain the flammability of Nitrate filmstock; the use of drawn-in arrows and captions to identify key nazis in crowd scenes; guest cameo performances, as if it were an episode of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. Another aspect of Tarantino's navel-gazing is his use of the movie-within-a- movie, and then another movie within THAT, and a charming old movie theater, and filmstock itself, as the vehicles by which final retribution is achieved. For a filmmaker, elevating film to such importance is a form of self-aggrandizement that is both revealing and irritating. Also limiting the film's appeal for me is its hypocrisy and/or cynicism. We watch Nazis watch a film about a hero sniper who kills 300 allied soldiers, and we are supposed to be appalled by their cheers and ecstacy as they revel in their hero's exploits. Of course, we have been watching our own "heroes" scalping nazis, shooting them, blowing them up, setting them on fire and bashing in their brains with baseball bats, so are we to take this as QT's indictment of our own voyeuristic bloodthirstiness? Nope. Unlike a film like Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN, our own behavior (and, therefore, Tarantino's) goes totally unjudged. We're just supposed to enjoy the revenge, no matter how much it aligns us with the Nazis. Of course, starting off a movie with "... Once upon a time" gives you extraordinary license, but it is not a license to be an arrogant, cruel cynic, even one with an affection for 70s pop culture.