Vic Sage

Deal for Barfield! His stock is down, but he's young and talented. Buy low for a change. Do it. Do it now.

the problem with getting Santana is you're talking about a 1-year rental. Emptying your system of prospects for a 1-year rental is generally not a smart thing to do. Especially when dealing position players for a pitcher. But iF a deal was contingent on signing him long-term, i'd give the Twins any 3 players in the organization (other than wright, reyes and OPerez... Beltran would cost them too much, so they wouldn't take him anyway; ditto Wagner).

before you decide on a plan C, i think you need to formulate a plan A. And i think Posada is a better Plan A than LoDuca.

no, but is it phucking phunny?

]At this point wouldn't re-signing LoDuca be the smart thing? "smart" in what way? In the "lets lock in the guy with the 81 OPS+ so we don't get stuck long-term with a guy that had an ops+ DOUBLE that (161, lifetime 126)" kind of way?

Norrin/Vic actually gives you: 30 - Wright - MVP 29 - Beltran - up and down, but solid overall numbers 28 - Perez - while up and down a bit, he was the best pitcher on the team. 27 - Reyes - 2 great months, + 4 crappy ones. 26 - Maine - 2nd half slide leaves questions 25 - Delgado - he was finally getting hot when he got hurt near the end 24 - Hernandez - mostly great, when available 23 - Wagner - great 1st 3 months, lousy last 2 22 - Alou - Terrific for 1/2 a season 21 - Glavine - ERA+ = 96; 200 IP of total mediocrity 20 - Heilman - stronger in 2nd half 19 - Green - finished strongly, better OPS+ than Reyes 18 - Feliciano - great 1st half; but too many walks 17 - LoDuca - OPS+ = 81 16 - Milledge - solid as part-timer 15 - Easley - best 2bman, in limited time 14 - Castillo - okay 13 - Sosa - good start as SP, then crash; inconsistent in pen 12 - Castro - better than LoDuca, but hurt 11 - Gotay - good hitter from 1 side, glove erratic 10 - Martinez - great in 5 GS 9 - Anderson - great PHer, productive in limited role 8 - Smith - great start, then "boom" 7 - Pelfrey - still waiting 6 - Gomez - shows flashes of speed and leather 5 - Chavez - not much this year 4 - Schoeneweis - better in 2nd half, but crap overall 3 - Mota - crap from day 51 on 2 - Velentin - crap, then hurt 1 - Burgos - hurt

Frayed Knot wrote: Which leads us to the combined list: 30 - Wright 29 - Beltran 28 - Reyes 27 - Maine 26 - Perez 25 - Delgado 24 - Hernandez 23 - Wagner 22 - Glavine 21 - Alou 20 - Heilman 19 - LoDuca 18 - Feliciano 17 - Green 16 - Castillo 15 - Milledge 14 - Sosa 13 - Easley 12 - Castro 11 - Gotay 10 - Martinez 9 - Smith 8 - Anderson 7 - Pelfrey 6 - Chavez 5 - Gomez 4 - Schoeneweis 3 - Mota 2 - Velentin 1 - Burgos So go ahead, show me where I'm nuts. Perez was better than Maine overall, and Green was better than LoDuca. And whether Glavine's full season of mediocrity was slightly better or worse than Alou's abreviated season of excellence is also open to debate. Other than that, i agree with your list.

We have holes at: -catcher -2b -starting pitching -middle relief - RF While i think we might possibly be able to deal with pitching (giving sustained looks at Pelfrey, Humber and/or Mulvey) and RF (with Milledge, Gomez and chavez) internally, we have no "frontline" starters or position players at "C" or "2b" (i'm not sold on Gotay) on the roster or in the pipeline ready to step in next year, so we either go with FAs and do a patch job at those positions (which actually worked out ok at 2b last year, overall), or we need to make a deal. Looking at the FAs this off-season, there are no names that give me much conidence at those positions (or any positions, really). Therefore, you need to seriously consider trading prospects. I still think a deal with Cleveland makes sense. They've given up on Barfield at 2B, but he's still young and talented enough to take a chance on. And Shoppach is still young enough to be an everyday catcher, but he's sitting behind an All-star. I'd give up some combination that included Gomez and/or Humber for those 2. However, if a top SP somehow came onto the market (Santana anyone?), that would be the first priority.

I can return my Yankee-fan brother's phone call from last week. the fact that the MFYs played only 4 more games than the Mets did this year helps to aleviate the pain somewhat. I hope they ride Torre out of town on a rail, then don't re-sign A-Rod, and spend the next decade finishing out of the playoffs, changing managers every year or 2.

Well, i implied it, and you inferred it, but now i'll say it... DAYS OF THUNDER SUCKS. In fact, it sucks BHMC.

cuz they didn't cough up enough bucks for her to go topless... they didn't pay the Halle Berry "Swordfish" bonus... $5M/per boob.

Whatever Ridley Scott's multitudinous flaws, he is at least an artist with a point of view. He has themes that he explores in his films (with varying degrees of success), and his films have a personal quality to them, a "hand-crafted" quality, that bespeaks the presence of an artistic vision. Tony Scott, however, is a hack. His action-oriented movies look good, move well, and have all the qualities of generally competent hollywood craftsmanship, but they have the smell of assembly-line, soulless processed movies made by-the-numbers. Some of his films have been quite good, including TRUE ROMANCE, CRIMSON TIDE and, to a lesser degree, MAN ON FIRE. But much of what is great about these films are in their screenplays. Otherwise, his films are just pure Bruckheimer... fast, loud and stupid. While a commercially successful filmmaker, nothing he's ever made has approached the artistry of ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THELMA & LOUISE or even GLADIATOR. And, i think it is safe to say, nothing he makes ever will. Tony Scott filmography: Deja Vu (2006) Domino (2005) Man on Fire (2004) Spy Game (2001) Enemy of the State (1998) The Fan (1996) Crimson Tide (1995) True Romance (1993) The Last Boy Scout (1991) Days of Thunder (1990) Revenge (1990/I) Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) Top Gun (1986) The Hunger (1983)

well, unlike books or paintings, a film is often not in the final control of the filmmaket. In fact, the final editing of BLADERUNNER was taken away from Scott's control, so it wasn't until years later, when the studio wanted to get out a "director's cut" to cash in on the film's burgeoning reputation that Scott got to have some input on the cut of the film. But even that version was a compromise. This "final cut" is, apparently, his intended version. But i agree with you. If a director wants to put out an alternative cut after its been released, then fine, as long as it doesn't REPLACE the original theatrical version. But with BLADERUNNER, you could only get the "director's cut" on DVD; the original theatrical version was not available. However, the "final cut" Dvd package will include every version of the film ever released, including the "work print" version that was screened only once; the original domestic version; the foreign theatrical version (more blood) the "dirctor's cut", as well as the "final cut". But i don't think i've ever seen a "director's cut" that was an improvement over the original version.

BLADERUNNER: The Final Cut is being released in theaters for a limited run before being made available in a deluxe DVD set for Xmas. I've been looking forward to if for some time, since its one of my favorite movies. check out the details: http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/upcoming-movies/blade-runner-final-cut-its-the-unicorn/ But let's be clear... Ridley Scott has to be the most over-rated director of his generation. Over the last 30 years, he has turned out maybe 3 or 4 good to great films, and then went back and sabotaged one of them. Scott started out as a set designer, and graduated to directing commercials in the 1960s-70s, so his style is exquisite in its sense of design and photography. But with regard to real storytelling, not so much. His first feature, THE DUELLISTS (1977), was a dirge-like contemplation of honor during the Napoleanic era. Its sonorous tone overlies exquisite visuals. But his next film ALIEN (1979), is the only unqualifiedly great movie on his resume. The quintessential "monster in the haunted house" movie dressed up as SF, it was both a huge critical and commercial success. This one gave him the clout to make, and then survive, his next project. BLADE RUNNER (1982) was a bomb upon its initial release but has, over time, become a cult classic and is now considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the last 25 years. And it certainly is my personal farorite of all his movies. The Vangelis score is hauntingly beautiful. The design is as influential as any movie ever made... until MATRIX, anyway. But most importantly, the themes of the story resonate in harmony with its images. What does it mean to be human? If you lack compassion, empathy, and emotional connection to others... are you really human? And if you have those things, does it matter what the origin of your biology is? Phillip K. dick wrote DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP partly as a critique of the "I was only following orders" defense of WWII-era Germans. Dick told us that we are each responsible for our own humanity, and the day we let the least of us die out of our own disinterest or lack of courage, we have surrendered that humanity. Of course, Scott completely sabotages this theme in the "Director's Cut" (and now again in the "final cut") by giving more evidence that Deckard is, himself, a Replicant, thereby rendering the entire point moot. Instead of a story of redemption, where a person reclaims his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others, Scott turns it into a story of a Replicant who learns to feel. Well, who cares if a non-existent fantasy construct called a "Replicant" learns to freakin' feel, Ridley? Why don't you say something about people, instead, you schmuck?! The DIRECTOR'S CUT is actually worse than the theatrical release in other ways, too. In addition to adding the "Deckard is a replicant" theme, he has stripped out the voice-over narration, which furthered the movie's "film noir" style, and its absence resonates throughout this cut. And while the movie didn't need the "happy ending" the studio originally insisted on, the dark ending you are now left with instead is not at all satisfying, and it removes the final images of blue sky that rewarded and mirrored Deckard's emotional transformation. These changes just indicate how little Scott understood what was great about his movie in the first place. After BLADERUNNER flopped, Scott churned out 3 stylish misfires: LEGEND (1985), SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME (1987) and BLACK RAIN (1989). LEGEND was a total flop, but SOMEONE and, to a lesser degree, BLACK RAIN were moderate commercial successes These lead up to his getting hired on to direct THELMA & LOUISE (1991). T & L was both a commercial and critical success, and is an excellent film, but Scott was brought into this project fairly late in its development, and was just a directo-for-hire on this one. Still, an excellent job, even if not entirely a "Ridley Scott" picture. But he followed up T&L with 3 pieces of Scottian crap: 1492 (1992) ,WHITE SQUALL (1996) and G.I. JANE (1997). While JANE was a huge hit (echoing his themes of militaristic women from ALIEN and T&L), I found it relentlessly ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. He hit the next one out of the park, however, withGLADIATOR (2000) ... a blockbuster/Oscar winner. But, despite its unmistakable grandeur and Russell Crowe's star-making performance, the film can be read as profoundly stupid and cynical (a view i share). Still, it remains one of his best works (which says all you need to know about Scott's career output). HANNIBAL (2001) was a hit, too, based largely on its status as a long awaited sequel to the terrific SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The critics lambasted it for the most part, and, while opulent, it is also repugnant and unengaging. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) was next and joined SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, G.I. JANE and HANNIBAL into the group of glossy but inept hits from the witless Brit. Despite its box office performance and even a generally positive critical reaction, BHD seems to me more akin to Scott's cinematic misfires like 1492 and WHITE SQUALL. BHD is basically a Bruckheimer film, where handsome young men perform heroic deeds at great speed and high volume. I didn�t hate it, but it left me totally uninvolved, unmoved, and not particularly entertained. I was, however (like the goofy-looking soldier in the film), left deafened by the din. Perhaps it could play on a triple bill with GI JANE and THE DUELLISTS as a meditation on the nature of martial honor... as told through a series of lovely photographs, narrated by a moron. Still, BHD has been Scott's last hit to date. MATCHSTICK MEN (2003) is a poorly constructed "Sting" con-man movie with an extremely annoying performance by Nick Cage. It failed to find an audience. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005), however, is pure Ridley, returning to the epic scale of GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe, so it ends up an entertaining donut... yummy around the edges with a hole in the middle. Again, coherence is not his strongsuit, but this is probably Scott's best film since GLADIATOR. Yet it, too, couldn't make back its huge budget domestically (though it ultimately paid off internationally). With A GOOD YEAR (2006), Ridley tried his hand at a romantic "dramedy"; watching Ridley Scott try to pull off this type of light entertainment is like watching a hippo trying to hula, which was not a sight anyone cared to see. A big flop . Lastly, this year's AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) is another of his "gun for hire" projects that has a mixed critical buzz going before its November opening. We'll see what level of audience interest is shown, expecially since its starring Denzel Washington. It could be pure hack work or a return to respectability. We shall see. At this point, Ridley Scott seems to me an idiot savant... a total genius with a camera, but nearly incapable of creating anything approaching human drama, except only occasionally and only be accident. Ridley Scott: filmography American Gangster (2007) A Good Year (2006) Kingdom of Heaven (2005) Matchstick Men (2003) Black Hawk Down (2001) Hannibal (2001) Gladiator (2000) G.I. Jane (1997) White Squall (1996) 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) Thelma & Louise (1991) Black Rain (1989) Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) Legend (1985) Blade Runner (1982) Alien (1979) Duelists, The (1977)

well, if we had good mechanics in the bullpen, maybe we would be able to get that little cart running again, and relievers could be driven in from the pen. That way, they wouldn't be tired before they even through their first pitch. Don't underestimate the value of a good mechanic.

Hey, MB, how come your website doesn't link to the Cranepool Forum?

watching Cleveland, it seems they've already given up on Barfield at 2b, and Shoppach has the stuff to be a regular catcher. Plus, Betancourt would look good in our pen. Hey Indians, lets make a deal!

i love the idea of a cubs - sox series. Go cubbies!

Trading everyday players for pitchers can often come back to bite you, due to the greater volitility of a pitcher's career (higher injury risk), and certainly trading 3 promising young players for 1 veteran arm on a 1-year deal makes the deal even more ridiculous. However, if they were to include Pat Neshek, and make the trade contingent on the Mets being able to sign Santana to a long-term deal, then i'd do it. Bartlett is a great defensive SS (for whatever that is worth), with decent speed, who showed a little better bat this year at age 27; Neshek (also 27) was one of the best setup guys in the majors; and Santana is one of the 5 best pitchers in BB. But i think the point is moot because Santana is going to free agency, so he'd be a 1-year rental. Giving up reyes in that situation is just plain nuts.

Of the FA starting pitchers on that list, there are no guys i'd break the bank to sign. However, we should show some mild interest in a few of them and see where they end up, including: Freddy Garcia (32) Jason Jennings (29) Joel Pineiro (29) Randy Wolf (31) These are some guys coming off injuries, but who have shown excellent arms with high ceilings. But it looks like the only way we're getting a front-line starter will be through a trade.

So, roster for `08 (based on current contracts): [u:7851d4974e]Line-up:[/u:7851d4974e] SS - Reyes 2b - _____ 3b - Wright Cf - Beltran Lf - Alou (*) 1b - Delgado Rf - Milledge C - _____ [u:7851d4974e]Bench:[/u:7851d4974e] Gotay (If) Gomez (Rh-of) _____ © _____ (Lh-Of) _____ (Rh - CI) _____ (UT) [u:7851d4974e]SP:[/u:7851d4974e] 1- ______ 2- Pedro 3- Glavine (**) 4- Maine 5- Oliver [u:7851d4974e]Bullpen:[/u:7851d4974e] Wagner Heilman Feliciano Mota Schoenweise Sanchez * = team option ** = Player option Basically, what this suggests is that, if there is going to be any significant turnover, the Mets are going to have move or swallow some contracts, especially in the pen. I'd hope that they'd not re-sign Castillo or LoDuca, or any other expensive replacements, and save the money for a frontline starter. Are there any good FA pitchers going to be available this winter? If not, its time to make a deal, with anybody other than Wright made available.

I'm rooting for injuries... serious, career-threatening injuries.

what about win shares and VORP rankings?

if Darling had said that on Mike and the Mad Dog, the Dog would likely have asked who this "Hugh Briss" guy was.

like the Mets, i had the lead and then blew it on the last day. congrats to Smeggy. 2nd place is like kissing your sister, if you have a really ugly sister.