Vic Sage

and the Mets gave their 1st round pick to Philly to sign Billy Wagner the #1 pick goes to KC and they've chosen... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-baseballdraft&prov=ap&type=lgns

i love Crowe as a filmmaker, but i heard this one was a dog. I've been reluctant to see it.

the kids seattle has in its middle infield have been terrific. I see no reason why they'd take on Kaz' salary, merely to back them up, regardless of his race.

I was disappointed in it.

team in the biggest market in the NL loses a potential 1st round pick because it won't pay an extra $0.5m in bonus money. this is what pisses me off about wilpon...

Here's your all-seniority Mets team (1st in games @ position): [u:13112d3fb4]lineup[/u:13112d3fb4] Mookie (cf) Backman (2b) C.Jones (lf) Strawberry (rf) Hojo (3b) Grote © Kranepool (1b) Harrelson (ss) [u:13112d3fb4]Bench (2nd in gms @ pos)[/u:13112d3fb4] Piazza k.Hernandez millan garrett ordonez McReynolds [u:13112d3fb4]Rotation (top 5 in IP)[/u:13112d3fb4] Seaver Koosman Gooden S.Fernandez Darling [u:13112d3fb4]Bullpen (top in gms)[/u:13112d3fb4] Franco Orosco McGraw Benitez McDowell Matlack (extra starter) [extra RHed setup guys = Wendell, Innis]

the way i read your post, i thought you were saying you didn't think his accomplishment was a big deal. However, if you were just saying that you didn't think his REACTION to his accomplishment was a big deal, then i'm sorry for ball breakage.

Elster88 wrote: One is, was it a big deal yesterday? I don't think so either. He did it cuz he got excited and all that. So, you don't think a guy's 1st career HR, hit in the bottom of the 9th, with 2 outs and 2 strikes, that ties up the game and sends it into extra innings, is a big deal for a rookie? Wow. You're strict. Were you my 10th grade geometry teacher?

]Actually Mike and Mike. M&MD won't be on until 1 i heard Francesa talking about it on "Miked Up" last night, so thats why i thought it was M&MD. but i had the same thought listening to Francesa agree with me last night... i had to reconsider for a moment, but then i decided "no, just because he agrees with me on this doesn't mean i'm wrong".

]I tend to be a baseball purist about many things. But this isn't one of them. It was a one time demonstration of youthful exuberance. That's all. The kid had just hit his first major league home run. Cut him some slack and let him enjoy it. i agree with '62. I watched this happen and was completely happy about it, as were the fans along the sidelines who'll remember the day they high-fived Milledge in his rookie season, after he hit the 1st of his 413 lifetime HRs. All the kid was doing was saying "thank you" to the fans as he ran out to his position between innings, excited after a once-in-a-lifetime accomplishment that also tied the game in the bottom of the 9th. His gesture had nothing at all to do with the other team or showing up anybody. As edgy said, athletes are so competitive they'll find offense here, so i don't really care what the Giants think about it. Similarly, i'm sure the old-schoolers in the Mets dugout didn't appreciate what they perceived as provocation that might rain beanballs their way, or another example of what they probably see as a too-cocky rookie who should just hang his head and carry their bags. So, frankly, i don't give a shit about what they think either. In fact, i think MORE players should say "thank you", and not be berated for it by their teammates. As a fan, I would have absolutely no problem with Bonds high-fiving his fans at PacBell on his way out to LF after a particularly notable accomplishment. If he did it after every HR, it would seem kind of lame, and eventually irritating, but for a special moment? Why not? Its between him and the fans. However, if he showboats and gets all demonstrative DURING THE INNING, flipping the bat, watching it go out, pointing at the pitcher, or saluting and waving to the fans (or doffing his cap) AS he rounds the bases, running slowly or backwards, etc., then I'd have a different view, because that DOES implicate the other team, requiring them to stand and watch him gesticulate at their expense while they're still on the field of play and trying to win. By the way, i have absolutely no use at all for the end zone dances in football, or rim-hanging, airplaning stuff after a slam dunk in basketball. Those gestures are not recognizing the fans' appreciation or saying "thank you", its saying "ain't i great" and "take THAT, M-----F---er". Even the Lambeau Leap is done right in the face of the other team, in their end zone, right after a score. If, however, a Green Bay receiver just caught his first career touchdown pass and jumped into the stands between quarters, or during a timeout, in his OWN endzone, to celebrate for a moment with the fans, i wouldn't have a problem with it. And that's what Milledge did. Now, of course, you may see this as an arbitrary distinction, but i don't think it is. Certain gestures are appreciative, other self-aggrandizing. Some are done on a players own time, in his own territory, and others are done in the face of his opponents in the middle of play. Some celebrate uniquely emotional accomplishments, others are the routine habits of a bad sport. That M&MD also approved of Milledge's gesture certainly gives me pause, but even blind pigs can find a truffle now and again.

Martinez 5 Sanchez 2 Wagner 1 Chavez 1 Valentin 1

i use "Alfie"... the Cher version.

]I felt like I happily caught a glimpse of a pretty girl naked but then felt bad because she was a friend of mine. I'd never feel bad about catching a glimpse of a pretty gir naked... if she's a friend, she'd understand my lack of remorse. Similarly, if the upside of having to endure the awful broadcasts by this amateurish, mickey mouse network is that we get unprecedented access... well, i don't see the downside. Pedro was out of the game. The interview didn't interfere with him doing his job, or the play of the game. It illicited genuine responses in a way the more premeditated, prepared press conference-type interviews do not.

I read a report in today's NYPost about the online furor (including petitions and alleged death threats) over the crappy new Mets theme song. "its not a rallying cry -- it's an outcry." the article begins. If anybody has a link to it, feel free. Apparently, the song has bee banned to only pre-game playtime. Yeah us!

]For what it's worth, the Times says it's made of wood, so maybe it'll splinter before ripping his jugular open. Or maybe it'll splinter, then rip his jugular open. well, that would certainly teach him a good lesson!

why not? Maddux is an old and expensive 6-inning pitcher, on a team out of the running. I don't know that he'd command better than 2 AAAA guys who are both relatively young and have had some success on the major-league level.

well, if they're going to insist on keeping Heilman in the pen, then i'm ok with a 6-inning starter.

didn't he originally sign as a FA with Atlanta because he didn't want to play in NY? Or did i dream that? anyway, i'd take him in a heartbeat. Maddux at 75% of his former glory is better than trax at 100%.

Gwreck wrote: ... that cross could potentially injure him pretty severly during the course of his baseball activities. I think a restriction on such things would be will within the Mets' rights, depending of course on the contracts and the like. Personally, I think it'd be sensible too. what if the cross is made out of rubber, or styrofoam, or play-doh?

18 New Mets: LoDuca Delgado Franco Valentin Nady Milledge E.Chavez SP: J.Gonzalez Bannister Maine El Duque Soler Lima RP: D.Oliver J.Julio Bradford D.Sanchez Wagner

as long as a player's apparel or accessory doesn't 1 - confuse anyone as to the player's team affiliation, 2 - distract players or otherwise interfere with play, 3 - create a hazard, or 3 - violate any law ...then i think players should be allowed to express their individual personalities by wearing whatever. Baseball is unlike other team sports in its focus on individual accomplishment. I also have a problem with owners and/or managers who insist on a "facial hair and hair length" team standard. Baseball ain't the army; hell, it ain't football, either.

i'm not incensed by Bonds, unlike most of youse, the media, congress and Jeff Kent. here are some random thoughts related to why it just doesn't bother me that much: - he was a multiple MVP and the best player in baseball BEFORE he bulked up. Its not like he was a mild mannered reporter from a great metropolitan newspaper who suddenly stepped out of a phone booth with a cape and a big red "B" on his chest, nor was he a guy whose whole career was predicated on steroids; - He didn't necessarily "cheat", since none of the substances he's accused of taking were against the rules of baseball at the time he's accused of taking them; - To the extent he did cheat, so did Gaylord Perry, who became a folk hero and a HOFer for doing so, and other HOFers who stole signs, faked catches that were trapped, stepped into HBPs, used corked bats, or whatever. We call those guys "competitive", with a wink and smile; - To the extent he has taken illegal drugs, so has every ballplayer eating a fistful of greenies before every game, and nobody has cared about that. Ruth drank during Prohibition and became a national treasure. - As illegal drugs go, i find the taking of peformance-ENHANCING drugs less reprehensible than use of performance-REDUCING drugs, which prevent players from living up to their obligations to owners, teammates and fans to play as well as they can. Why should I get outraged that Bonds has passed the #2 career HR hitter... a guy who probably cost himself years off his career from being a carousing, gluttonous drunk during the Prohibition era? Because the Babe was a national hero and Bonds a national disgrace? - That Bonds is an asshole seems clear, from a distance. But i think the media uses that, and his lack of appropriate shame, to villify him out of all proportion. - Ruth is the greatest player of all time. Until somebody puts up comparable numbers as a hitter AND a pitcher, i don't think its a subject up for serious debate. Nobody thinks Aaron is the greatest player of all time. He happens to hold a particular record. Its not Ruth's record, and it hasn't been his record for over 30 years. Bonds passing Ruth on the "Career HR" list does not diminish Ruth's greatness, and it is not a record-breaking accomplishment, so all this fuss seems artificially induced to continue fanning "the steroids outrage" phenomenon. - the "purity of statistics" is bullshit. there are factors in every era that skew the numbers, one way or another. The fact that Ruth, etal, put up his numbers in an era that prevented blacks from competing with him doesn't mean he should have an *asterisk; it simply puts his era into context, like the "dead ball era", the pitching era of the 60s, etc. So this will be the "steroids era" and statisticians will adjust accordingly.

i just added him in one of my fantasy leagues. too bad we couldn't add him in a real league.

my Soler enthusiasm was originally dampened back when it was reported that, even during his recent success at AAA, his fastball couldn't break 90 mph. "lack of stuff" is a great enthusiasm dampener.

Instead of pulling another Cairo on us this year, Willie is letting the hot-hitting Valentin take over some 2b duties from Matsui, despite Jose's inexperience at the position and Kaz' clear defensive superiority. Willie even said he'd go with Valentin, Woodward and Kaz based on "matchups" and computer data, rather than blathering on about going with his gut, or the importance of defense. This seems like progress to me.