Vic Sage

the ace is a need, the 2bman a luxury. I'm sure if Omar could've found a significantly better 2bman, he'd have pursued him. But the guys available (other than Soriano, who he didn't want to pay for, and Durham, who is also old and as likely to break down as Valentin) were really not signifcant upgrades. I'd still like him to take a shot at Giles. But more important now is a frontline starter.

Do you really need somebody to pay for Olney to tell us we need an ace and a 2bman?

absolutely. the only point to be made here is that Hughes was a guy who came out of the 60s and National Lampoon. He went from putting class conflict into teen comedies to regurgitating a vomitous formula for the rest of his career. Money makes people crazy.

Edgy DC wrote: Some Kind of Wonderful is wonderful. So much after Home Alone is the formula revisited. for those who prefer Masterson to Ringwald, i can understand the enthusiasm for WONDERFUL. I didn't think it was bad, just ok. i'm not sure which "formula" he revisited after HOME ALONE. Certainly not his "teen-angst-comedy" formula, which had all but run its course by that time. But yes, the HOME ALONE formula (cute young protagonist defeating bumbling, crazy or evil adults) was certainly revisited ad nauseum. Curly Sue (1991) Home Alone 2 (1992) Beethoven (1992) Dennis the Menace (1993) Baby's Day Out (1994) 101 Dalmatians (1996) Flubber (1997) Home Alone 3 (1997)

This Chicago-area native became hugely successful as the primary auteur of teen angst comedies of the 80s and family comedies of the 90s. A child of the 60s, Hughes' films often have a theme running through them about the "haves" and the "have nots"... conflicts and romances between those on different sides of the tracks. sometimes its just upper-middle class suburban snobbery vs working class crassness. He finds humor and pathos in the romantic and class conflicts of his teen protagonists. There is also a distinct thread of "empowered youth defeating moronic adults" in most of his films. His films also deal with the dysfunctional family, and how they overcome their problems with love. Which was certainly at odds with his more youth-oriented films. Ultimately, in his career, the gooey sentimentality won out over the angst and he became a hack. He began as a staff writer for National Lampoon, seguing into screenwriting on the Lampoon's feature productions. The success of his screenplays for VACATION and the subsequent MR. MOM gave him the leverage to direct. Interestingly, it was the overlooked NATE & HAYES, his unsuccessful attempt to recusitate the pirate genre, which was probably his best work of this period Writer: National Lampoon's Class Reunion (1982) - sucked National Lampoon's Vacation (1983) - ok, big hit Nate and Hayes (1983) - interesting flop Mr. Mom (1983) - ok, hit Hughes then directed 8 films in the next 7 years. While the first 5 were good to excellent, the last 3 sucked, and he finally gave up directing for good.(for OUR good, actually) Writer/director: Sixteen Candles (1984) - launches his directorial career and his own sub-genre... the "teen angst 80s comedy". Writer/director/producer: The Breakfast Club (1985) - The brat pack is born. Dated, but still worthwhile. Weird Science (1985) - stupid, but almost amusing. Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) - Hughes creates a teen icon that still persists. Bueller? Bueller? Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987) - His best grown up comedy, John Candy breaks your heart. She's Having a Baby (1988) - young marrieds; not good Uncle Buck (1989) - Candy almost saves it, but not quite. Curly Sue (1991) - unredeemed treacle. During his directing period, he produced some of his screenplays, with others holding the directorial reins, thereby continuing his Lampoon films, and his "chicago-teen angst comedies with heart" movies. Finally realizing it was easier to make money hiring other people to direct his scripts, he became an even more successful writer/producer, with crap like HOME ALONE. Again, his most interesting film of the period was a John Candy flop ONLY THE LONELY, which was a really touching romantic comedy with John Candy (Hughes neither wrote nor directed it. He produced it, with Chris Columbus the writer/director). Writer/producer: National Lampoon's European Vacation (1985) - if you liked the other one, you'll like this one Pretty in Pink (1986) - another solid addition to the Hughes oevre Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) - Mary Stuart Masterson is no Molly Ringwald. The Great Outdoors (1988) - amusing Candy vehicle National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989) - yet another. Home Alone (1990) - HUGE movie, some entertainment value. Career Opportunities (1991) - Jennifer Connelly. Oh, yeah. Only the Lonely (1991) (producer only) - the best of this period After the failure of a good film like ONLY THE LONELY and the incredible success of crap like HOME ALONE, Hughes continued down the road of utter hack, ultimately becoming a Disney hitman, churning out one abomination after another. He even used the pseudonym of "Edmond Dantes" on some scripts, revealing (either consciously or unconsciously) the depths of his imprisonment within his own cynicism. Writer/producer: Dutch (1991) - crap Home Alone 2 (1992) - crap Beethoven (1992) (writer only, as “Edmond Dantes�

JOHN HUGHES filmography http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=5340

]B-b-b-but Rocker loves kittens! Only when they're properly cooked.

that statue looks like its got a gang bang going on there. And might the award be for best drawing of full-figured gals? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Paul_Rubens

that kind of offer leaves a 2yr/$10m as an attractive alternative for the Mets to pursue.

This is the top 10 from my projected list back in an earlier thread (to the extent they are still in the organization): L.Milledge, OF M.Pelfrey, RHP P.Humber, RHP F.Martinez, OF C.Gomez, OF M.Carp, 1B Coles, OF D.Guerra, RHP J.Neise, LHP A.Soler, RHP [u:c066a369b2]compared to their list:[/u:c066a369b2] L.Milledge, of F.Martinez, cf P.Humber, rhp M.Pelfrey, rhp C.Gomez, of A.Soler, rhp J.Niese, lhp K.Mulvey, rhp M.Carp, 1b D.Guerra, rhp i included coles over Mulvey, but otherwise the lists are identical (if not precisely in the same order). I concede their point about Mulvey, who was the next on my list.

O: As the #3 overall pick in 78 draft, i always thought he'd be more for the Mets than he was. As it turned out, the best thing he did was get traded to the Expos for Gary Carter, bringing the final piece of the championship puzzle to NY. F:SNY will now feature 3 players from the 86 team in its pre- and post-gme broadcasts: Keith, Ron and Lee Mazzilli.

Mike Hampton didn't open up the Japanese TV market for Colorado. And signing Mike Hampton didn't keep him out of the clutches of the Rockies' main competitor (because they don't have one). Signing pitchers to long term deals is always risky. That being said, i think the BoSox did this just right.

i like Piniero and Giles, for immediate help, and Werth and Claussen for AAA depth, because of their still unrealized upside.

apparently, he's from the SD area, and being able to go home, and to play with his brother, are going to be hard preferences to overcome. but i think the Mets should certainly take a shot. He's got the kind of RHed pop that would give the lineup more balance. i think he was cut loose because of his dislike of batting leadoff, which may have lead to unpleasantness with management, and their exhaustion with his chronic injuries. Still, he's 28, and if he gets hurt, its not like we'd be building the lineup around him. We'd still have Valentin. He's definitely worth a serious look.

]While we're at it, let's stop calling the phantom double play. well, that's about safety as much as anything. Forcing the MI to stand in there against a guy coming in hard to break it up is just going to increase injuries. the "neighborhood play" simply reduces injuries and takes the axiom that if the ball beats the runner, he's out.

Fred WILPON: For what you are about to receive May the lord make you truly thankful. Darren OLIVER: Please, sir... I want some more. Omar MINAYA: What?! OLIVER: Please, Omar... I want some more. WILPON: More!? MINAYA: Scratch him! WILPON: Cut him! MINAYA: release him! WILPON: bury him! MINAYA: Pounce him! Trounce him! Pick him up and bounce him! WILPON: Wait! Before we kick him to the curb Can you please remind me, Omar, of his name? MINAYA: O-li-ver. WILPON & MINAYA: Oliver Oliver As ever before, you bums wanting more! Oliver Oliver But don't ask for more When you don't know what's in store. MINAYA: There a dark, bad, franchise in KC, where now stands Brian Bannister You could end up there, getting beat on daily, knocking you down till you fall on your fannister WILPON & MINAYA: Oliver Oliver What will he do when he can't wear black and blue? He will curse the day Somebody named him O-li-ver! WILPON: Oliver Oliver As ever before, you boys wanting more! Oliver Oliver But don't ask for more When you don't know what's in store. MINAYA: There's a team in Tampa Long overdue for a winning year If we push you out, you can play in a dome and fall on your derriere!. WILPON: Oliver Oliver As ever before, you boys wanting more! Oliver Oliver But don't ask for more When you don't know what's in store. MINAYA: There's a team in SoCal that's spending to stay competitive But if they'll pay you that much, go pitch for the Angels while we get repetitive! WILPON: Oliver Oliver What will we do, except to say tootle-oo? We won't rue the day the Angels signed up O-li-ver! MINAYA: Oliver...Oliver ride him out on a rail, let them put him on sale, For the highest bid Glad to be rid Of WILPON & MINAYA: O-li-ver!

]It [would] basically put an end to base stealing and would require runners at first keep a foot on the bag at all times, since they could never be sure if the pitcher was going to the plate. Hell, even going from first to third on a single would be more difficult. The ultimate effect would be to reduce scoring (since it would cut down the number of baserunners). it would reduce the lead, not eliminate it. Yes, it would make stealing 2b more difficult, but it wouldn't have much effect on stealing 3rd. Once the ball is released toward the plate, the baserunner can extend his lead, so this shouldn't signifcantly impact on going from 1st to 3rd. You are also assuming 100% success rate in pickoff attempts. More attempts = more errors advancing runners. Pretending its a rule that actually does what its supposed to, or that its fixable anymore, is just silly. ]The solution is to make sure the balk is called consistently. well, thats the point. Its such a subjective rule, it is not AND CANNOT be called consistently. The solution is to eliminate the rule and, if it drastically reduces scoring, then come up with some OBJECTIVE standard, like x number of pickoff attempts, to counter-balance it. ]As for the Reyes's play, he was doing exactly what caused the creation of the infield fly rule in the first place, and I'm not surprised he was called on it. It's one thing to get an edge, but it's another to remove all chance of success. We're not debating whether Reyes was guilty or not, or the rule should've been invoked or not. But the play does not at all "remove all chance of success". ]Without the IF rule, there will be a situation where it's nearly always a double play, no matter what the runners do. If they stay close to the bag, the fielder drops it and gets a DP; if they run, the fielder catches it and gets a DP. A fielder might (a) forget to drop the ball, ( drop the ball, but throw it into centerfield, advancing both runners, © drop the ball but find a baserunner standing safe on 2b (anticipating his drop ball play), (d) drop the ball and fail to throw out the baserunner, if the hitter hustled down the line knowing the "drop ball play" is a possibility, or (e) execute the play perfectly (along with his teammates) while the runners failed to anticipate it, thus resulting in a DP. There are lots of possible outcomes, and that makes the game more interesting. why would the elimination of the IF Rule be so awfully unfair to the baserunners, when we simply say of a line-drive double play (or triple play) "tough luck"? Why do we penalize the fielder for his ingenuity in turning a pop-up into a line-drive double play? The fielder is taking a calculated gamble by giving up a sure out in the attempt to get 2 outs. Surely he should be rewarded if he (a) thinks to do it, and ( executes it properly and © his teammates likewise execute it properly and (d) the hitter and/or runners don't hustle or take a chance of their own, knowing the play is a possiblity. These are both archaic rules that aren't necessary and, frankly, never were; neither do they add anything to the game. In fact, the balk rule slows down the game. If you want to have an "automatic play" (like the IF rule), how about making an intentional walk automatic? The few wild pitches you lose out on i think is more than made up for by the time saved. Also, keep the hitters in the damn box.

i think the only part of the game that would be effected by eliminating the balk rule would be a lower success rate in stealing 2b. If you want to counter the pitcher's edge in that realm, simply limit the number of attempted pickoffs per base, per runner. If you can't pick off the guy on three balk-free moves to 1st, you better quick pitch him and let your catcher try and nail him. And why shouldn't Jose's ingenuity in that case be rewarded. For every double play caused by the elimination of the IF rule, there'd always be some guys that just forget to drop it and a number of busted attempts (resulting in errors) causing even more baserunners, or at least no fewer.

i'm surprised i haven't done a John Hughes filmography. i'll get right on that.

molly ringwald was a redhead. I plead the 5th.

i don't think one man smelling another man's potential is legal in Kansas City.

i think that should be his name from now on.

... not a belly itcher! We want a pitcher, not a glass of water! ho ho! hey hey! Tommy G is gonna stay! hey hey! ho ho! Now Barry Z has gotta show! EVERYBODY!!!! LETS HERE IT!!!! OMAR CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? sorry. Its Friday. I'm losing it.

besides the ridiculously small sample size, describing a finesse pitcher throwing (on average) the first 5 innings of 5 games in April for a good-hitting team as having proven that he can "pitch in a tight spot", as opposed to a wild 22-year old kid with a power arm asked to close out 9th innings for a bad team to mixed results over the course of 70+ innings, is just so... salamandarian.

Centerfield wrote: ="Vic Sage"]Loretta, at 35, doesn't offer us anything more than Valentin. Lets save our chips for a significant upgrade to the rotation, rather than frittering away talent/$$ on marginal upgrades/backups to the #8 hitter. That is assuming Valentin plays as well as he did last year and not the way he played the year before. Loretta is more of a sure-thing, and comes relatively cheap. No, it assumes Valentin, even if he regresses to career averages, is still ok as a #8 hitter. If he falls apart, gotay, etal, get to hit 8th. And Loretta, at his age and rate of decline, is no more a sure-thing than Valentin at this point in his career. He also has signficantly less range, for those who care about such things. Again, i might take Loretta over Valentin this year, but its not a meaningful difference. Its time to focus on a pitcher.