Vic Sage

if tampa is looking to move Lugo, and are strangely willing to take Matsui + Cash, why can't we just get Lugo, instead of waiting for him to go somewhere else? He's a pretty good player, with some power and speed, and would fit right in at 2b. Obviously, TB wouldn't trade him straight up for Matsui (+ cash), but how much more would it take? Diaz? Trax? A good but non-Milledge type prospect?

There are guys who i don't want to have to root for. Clemens is one of them. Not because he's a mercenary, but because i perceive him to be (rightly or wrongly) a cowardly, headhunting, unnaturally bulked up jock-bully. But Davey Cone was as much a gun-for-hire as ever threw a Laredo, and i'd take someone of his ilk in a heartbeat. So, I'd be irritated if the Mets signed Clemens... right up till he threw his first shutout. Then i'd get over it and start perceiving him (rightly or wrongly) as a misunderstood hero who i have the honor of watching on his march to Cooperstown as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. See how that works?

]I think we adapt, because we're amazingly adaptive creatures, and our relationship is often not just to the team --- and not to the laundry either, that's crapcake --- but to each other and the culture we're a part of as fans. But we shouldn't have to or be so willing to adapt so much. It diminishes the team, diminishes the fans, diminishes the relationship between the two. mmmm, crapcake. I hear they make good crapcakes in Baltimore. If they want to pack up a crate of crapcakes along with Tejada and send that package to Queens, i'd have a crapcake-eating grin on my face. as to our relationship to the team... the only constant is the IDEA of the team. It is the national league franchise of NYC, inheritors of the mantle of the Dodgers and Giants. Players change, ownership and management changes, "fan culture" changes. Edgy, believe it or not, i was a Mets fan before I had a "relationship" with you or any other Mets fans, or had any notion of "fan culture". I inherited a rooting interest from my parents, and it grew in relative isolation thru my adolescence. I can enjoy watching games by myself, or with others, but I require no "relationship" with other fans. I enjoy this site, but i've only been involved in it for a few years, while my fandom goes back to 1971. Sure, i enjoy arguing about them, but it doesn't matter to me who wears the Jersey. I long ago cured myself of the delusion that "my team" was connected in any way to any particular player. They come, they go. My hope is that they play good ball while they're here, and if they go, we get appropriate value for them in return. I root for my team, good or bad. I don't become a Red Sox fan because i hate the management; I don't become a Yankee fan because i'm sick of the losing. I root for my team because they connect me to ME... to my own youth, my own family history, my own core values. Those values don't include demonizing change, or spiritualizing continuity, for its own sake. My values are about choosing (choice being an existential act, not a spiritual one) to connect to the IDEA of my team, not any particular guy who happens to be wearing the uniform today. In my loyalty to the IDEA of my team, i am always rewarded by its constancy, its unchanging nature, despite all the change swirling around me. IF the Mets should stop being the national league outpost in NYC, if they should contract, or pick up and leave, or switch leagues, i'll be betrayed (like the generation before me), and i'll question my fandom at that time. But until that time, they are my team come hell, highwater, bad trades or good ones. I don't believe I'll get greater joy from a WS title that results from homegrown kids rather than one that is delivered by mercenaries. I do, however, believe an all-star import team is unlikely to ever WIN a WS, without a balance of youthful excuberance and talent pushing it forward. Which is why i think Omar needs to pull back from the bridge too far. I think the team can be improved enough with available FAs, with no need to surrender any more significant young talent. Milledge, Wright.. I believe we move them at our peril, at this point. But Reyes is not a guy i ever trusted, and still don't. I believe, like Billy Beane does, that OB% is not just a skill but a talent, and while it's a skill that can be improved, if you don't have that talent, then the improvement will only ever be marginal. IMO, Reyes has a better chance of developing power over time, based on his frame and his swing, than he does of ever raising his OB% to a productive level, and its on that basis that his future potential rests. But if you can get Tejada for him, you're getting the player Reyes only has the potential to one day be.

]Even if they hadn't done anything this offseason, they still would have been legitimate contenders next season, if only because they were unlucky last season and their young players are expected to improve. our very own William Peter Rottblatty made this very same point some time ago, in a lengthy thread accompanied by an avalanche of statistical evidence. Neyer... a step late and a dollar short.

i think Diaz might go, and they'll use a 5 man bench to carry 12 pitchers (maybe keeping the rule 5 guy).

fine, but my rating should be based on my overall sense of historical perspective, not based on my immediate reaction to the last movie i've seen that i really liked. I really, really like THE INCREDIBLES. Is it one of the best movies i've ever seen? No. then, why would i give it the very highest possible rating... the same rating i WOULD give to one of the best movies ever? And, unless it's one of the best movies YOU'VE ever seen, why would YOU give it 5 stars? I'm open to anybody's discussion of what makes THE INCREDIBLES 5-star movie, but i just don't think that because its the best of a particular genre of movie, it necessarily follows that its amongst the best movies ever. [The best movie i've ever seen where you can see Jane Fonda's tits is BARBARELLA. woo hoo! a 5-star movie! lets get that poll going!]If, over the course of the next few decades, INCREDIBLES becomes merely a cinematic footnote in animation, surpassed by any number of other animated films, wouldn't that rating drop? And if, at some future time where enough the movie has been given an opportunity to be judged by future generations of movie goers, it turns out (like KANE and WIZARD OF OZ) that it is one for the ages, then a 5-star rating would be appropriate. But i'm going to wait until i have some distance, some perspective, before i judge ANY movie made in the last 10-20 years as being amongst the best movies ever. When AFI came out with its "top 100 of all time", in 1998, it included such then-recent films like FARGO, at the expense of many a deserving classic. I thought it was stupid. How do you judge a movie made a few years ago as amongst the best ever? As time has gone on, FARGO isn't discussed that much anymore. I doubt it would make the list if they were to make a new one today. Fallacy of the new.time will tell.Greatness is a judgement of history.

as i said in the Franco thread, the presence of Julio down at the schoolyard lessens the role of Diaz on this team. Assuming Nady is slotted as the RFer (more or less full-time), and Franco is the fill-in at 1b (eliminating the need to move Nady there, which would've opened up RF for Diaz, on occasion) and assuming Franco is the primary RH PHer /DH, and that Valentin is in IF/OF Ut & RHed PH, too... what is Diaz, besides a possible sub for the subs? I don't think he has a role anymore, and i agree that it's time to move him. He's shown enough (both in the minors and majors) to have some value. I like the romero suggestion, or as part of a bigger deal for a front-line SPer [benson, Diaz + prospect for Zito?], or even for other prospect(s). He has no position and he's an impatient hitter, and he doesn't have enough power yet to justify these flaws. Might he develop? Yes, quite possibly. But with Nady in front of him now, he won't get the chance here.

he's still useful, he won't cost much, he's one of Omar's guys (I've read that Omar knows him from Texas and has always thought highly of him as a "character" guy, and wants him in the organization). As for his age, does it matter? He's played at a pretty consistent level from his early 40s to his late 40s... you think he'll suddenly become so much "older" at 48 than he was at 47? And even if he does, his pricetag is such that it won't cripple the team to simply kick him upstairs into "community relations" or whatever it is Omar's got in mind for his compadre. To the extent he Franco takes ABs away from V.Diaz or Nady, its not a great move. But i don't have alot of faith in either of those guys being significantly more productive than Franco this year, so that too is not the end of the world, as far as i'm concerned. Besides, it could just mean that Nady is slotted to be the full-time RFer (more or less), so the Franco signing might have only minimal impact on him. Still, the Franco signing will likely reduce Diaz's role, and to the extent one believes Diaz has a real future here, I can understand disliking this move.

so, if he cost the Mets $8m/4yrs? Wouldn't they still be a better team with: R.Hernandez - draftpick rather than LoDuca + 1.75m/2yrs - Gaby Hernandez - PTBNL?

Ugh. The LoDuca deal looks even worse now, and i didn't like it to begin with. This is exactly what i was afraid of. We trade for an aging mediocrity, costing us a significant prospect (maybe 2), because he "only" costs $6.25/yr for 2 yrs, instead of signing the younger, better Hernandez who ends up costing less than $7m/yr for 4 yrs (an avg of $6.8M). Length of contract is irrelevant here. Both Loduca and Hernandez would be about the same age at the end of their respective deals. If its ok to pay LoDuca $6.25m at age 34-35, why isn't it ok to pay Hernandez $6.8m at that age, when Hernandez still has the potential for good years ahead and he costs you only a draftpick, not one of your top prospects. bad, bad, bad. this is like trading Cameron for Nady. You save a little $, but surrender a valuable chip without improving. twice, Omar. You've done it twice now. 3 strikes and yer out, Assface.

]On Edit: You don't even need to sign Washburn...you could slot in Zambrano as the #5 starter why kill when you can overkill? IT'S JUST FREDDIE'S MONEY!

]Can we get Pujols too? we could if he was a non-tendered FA! Wouldn't you move Heaven and Earth to sign him?

]This is what happens to you when you start with the fantasy leagues no, this is what happens when you look at your roster and evaluate strengths and weaknesses, without rose-colored glasses. I'm not saying we cannot have a successful season without fixing those weaknesses, but i'd sure like our chances alot better if they did. without giving up more prospects or draft picks, we can sign: - J.Encarnacion [or Wilson] (to start in RF); - Nomah (can move to 2b) - T.Jones (setup RP/spot closer); and - Washburn (LSP) - M.Myers (LOOGY) - Fick (LH backup at C/1b/Of) THEN: Trade Benson + Seo + V.Diaz or prospect(s) [not milledge] for a top-tier SPer (Zito) They can also trade Matsui for anything, to get $$ relief. Lineup: Reyes Beltran Wright Delgado Floyd Nomah Encarnacion LoDuca Bench: Castro Nady Valentin Redman Woodward Fick Rotation: Pedro Zito Glavine Trax Washburn Bullpen: Wagner T. Jones Heilmann M. Myers Zambrano + _____ (Yates, Soler, etc) They'd have a significantly higher payroll (even after moving Benson and Matsui, but significantly less than the other NY team, and not inconsistent with Boston's payroll. Spend the money, Freddie! Bring it on home, baby! Don't come up a dollar short this year!

in that category, i can't imagine Fabio had it too easy in middle school.

I think we still need: 1) a Frontline SPer better than Benson; 2) a few solid relievers, especially a LRP; [i think it was a mistake not to offer arbitration to Looper] 3) a 2bman better than Matsui; and 4) a better RF option than Nady or Diaz (or at least a LH bat better than Tike Redman that could platoon with one of them); from amongst the available non-tendered, I'm interested in some of the following names: BALTIMORE (6) -- Sammy Sosa BOSTON (4) -- Mike Myers, lhp DETROIT (4) -- Rondell White, of. LOS ANGELES (4) -- Jarrod Washburn, lhp. NEW YORK (8) -- -- Alan Embree, lhp; Matt Lawton, of; OAKLAND (4) -- Octavio Dotel, rhp; Erubiel Durazo, dh NATIONAL LEAGUE CHICAGO (3) -- Jeromy Burnitz, of; Chad Fox, rhp; Nomar Garciaparra, ss. FLORIDA (10) -- Juan Encarnacion, of; Todd Jones, rhp; HOUSTON (2) -- Roger Clemens, rhp; PHILADELPHIA (5) -- Michael Tucker, of; Ugueth Urbina, rhp. ST. LOUIS (7) -- Reggie Sanders, of; Julian Tavarez, rhp; SAN DIEGO (5) -- Robert Fick, c; WASHINGTON (3) -- Preston Wilson, of.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2251972 Here is the list of FAs who were not offered arbitration by their teams: [u:d13e425f8c]AMERICAN LEAGUE[/u:d13e425f8c] BALTIMORE (6) -- James Baldwin, rhp; Jason Grimsley, rhp; Eli Marrero, of; Rafael Palmeiro, 1b; Sammy Sosa, of; B.J. Surhoff, of. BOSTON (4) -- Matt Mantei, rhp; Kevin Millar; 1b; Mike Myers, lhp; John Olerud, 1b. CHICAGO (3) -- Raul Casanova, c; Carl Everett, dh; Frank Thomas, dh. CLEVELAND (2) -- Juan Gonzalez, of; Jose Hernandez, 1b. DETROIT (4) -- Jason Johnson, rhp; Bobby Higginson, of; Fernando Vina, 2b; Rondell White, of. KANSAS CITY (4) -- Brian Anderson, lhp; Denny Hocking, of; Jose Lima, rhp; Scott Sullivan, rhp. LOS ANGELES (4) -- Jason Christiansen, lhp; Lou Merloni, 3b; Bengie Molina, c; Jarrod Washburn, lhp. MINNESOTA (2) -- Joe Mays, rhp; Terry Mulholland, lhp. NEW YORK (8) -- -- Kevin Brown, rhp; Alan Embree, lhp; John Flaherty, c; Matt Lawton, of; Tino Martinez, 1b; Felix Rodriguez, rhp; Rey Sanchez, ss; Ruben Sierra, dh. OAKLAND (4) -- Alberto Castillo, c; Octavio Dotel, rhp; Erubiel Durazo, dh; Scott Hatteberg, dh. SEATTLE (5) -- Shigetoshi Hasegawa, rhp; Dave Hansen, 1b; Jeff Nelson, rhp; Pokey Reese, ss. Dan Wilson, c. TAMPA BAY (2) -- Roberto Alomar, 2b; Danny Bautista, of. TEXAS (6) -- Sandy Alomar Jr., c; Doug Brocail, rhp; Greg Colbrunn, 1b; Richard Hidalgo, of; Steve Karsay, rhp; Kenny Rogers, lhp. [u:d13e425f8c]NATIONAL LEAGUE[/u:d13e425f8c] ARIZONA (3) -- Royce Clayton, ss; Shawn Estes, lhp; Buddy Groom, lhp. ATLANTA (3) -- Julio Franco, 1b; Todd Hollandsworth, of; Jay Powell, rhp. CHICAGO (3) -- Jeromy Burnitz, of; Chad Fox, rhp; Nomar Garciaparra, ss. CINCINNATI (1) -- Luis Lopez, 3b. COLORADO (3) -- Todd Greene, c; Dan Miceli, rhp; Jamey Wright, rhp. FLORIDA (10) -- Antonio Alfonseca, rhp; Jeff Conine, of; Damion Easley, 2b; Juan Encarnacion, of; Alex Gonzalez, ss; Todd Jones, rhp; Jim Mecir, rhp; Mike Mordecai, 3b; Paul Quantrill, rhp; Ismael Valdez, rhp. HOUSTON (2) -- Roger Clemens, rhp; Jose Vizcaino, 2b. LOS ANGELES (4) -- Paul Bako, c; Elmer Dessens, rhp; Darren Dreifort, rhp; Jose Valentin, 3b. MILWAUKEE (1) -- Wes Helms, 3b. NEW YORK (11) -- Miguel Cairo, 2b; Mike DeFelice, c; Danny Graves, rhp; Roberto Hernandez, rhp; Braden Looper, rhp; Doug Mientkiewicz, 1b; Jose Offerman, 1b; Mike Piazza, c; Felix Heredia, lhp; Shingo Takatsu, rhp; Gerald Williams of. PHILADELPHIA (5) -- Kenny Lofton, of; Ramon E. Martinez, ss; Todd Pratt, c; Michael Tucker, of; Ugueth Urbina, rhp. PITTSBURGH (4) -- Brian Meadows, rhp; Jose Mesa, rhp; Daryle Ward, 1b; Rick White, rhp. ST. LOUIS (7) -- Einar Diaz, c; Cal Eldred, rhp; Mark Grudzielanek, 2b; Al Reyes, rhp; Reggie Sanders, of; Julian Tavarez, rhp; Larry Walker, of. SAN DIEGO (5) -- Robert Fick, c; Chris Hammond, lhp; Joe Randa, 3b; Rudy Seanez, rhp; Mark Sweeney, 1b. SAN FRANCISCO (2) -- J.T. Snow, 1b; Brett Tomko, rhp. WASHINGTON (3) -- Carlos Baerga, 3b; Jeffrey Hammonds, of; Preston Wilson, of. of

]"He's got the body of a 30-year-old," Yeah, he's got the body locked in the trunk of his car. Valentin sucked when he was good. A warm body. whoop de damn doo.

If it were a ten-point scale, I'd give it a nine, but since The Incredibles is the best computer animated film ever, it deserves a five.But a numerical rating seems to me an absolute evaluation, not a relative one. "Its a 4 star movie, but i gave it 5 stars because its better than any other Computer-animated movie" seems like strange reasoning to me.I think THE CROW is the best adaptation of a comicbook ever put on film, and i'd give it 5 stars in my personal pantheon of favorite movies, but it doesn't "deserve a five". It probably deserved no more than 3 stars. As for GOOD, BAD & UGLY, i threw that in to be sarcastic because, while i think its one of the greatest movies of all time, and certainly the best "spaghetti western" ever, i don't think i could honestly say that such a view reflects any critical consensus but my own. It, too, is more of a 3-star film.As for SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS, personally i would put MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK ahead of it (GREAT McGINTY, too, come to think of it) in terms of personal preference, but the critical consensus has evolved around SULLIVAN as Sturges' "best" movie, presumably because of the "social relevancy" component of its message.. But, like i said, if you give INCREDIBLES 5 stars, what rank do you give other films, even animated films, that have stood the test of time and have come to be accepted as "deserving" of a 5-star rating? If, in 20 years, INCREDIBLES is viewed with the kind of passion you have for it (I loved it, too), then 5 stars would seem appropriate. But until then, it strikes me as the "fallacy of the new", where the last positive experience a person had is more highly valued than an earlier experience, even one MORE positive.Perspective. This is all i'm saying.

A brilliant movie. Dazzling dialogue, witty performances and manic pacing keep it entertaining today, even when many other good movies from that era seem stale and dated. The reporters' indifferent reaction to the death of the whore is PERFECT in tone, satirizing the callousness of the jackal pack. If you dislike the film for reflecting the sociological sensitivities (or lack thereof) of its time, then so be it. Anybody can dislike a movie for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. It's a matter of personal taste. But having a dislike for it, one can still acknowledge its relative quality as a film. BIRTH OF A NATION, POTEMPKIN and THE OLYMPIAD are brilliant movies, too, but certainly not in the context of modern morality, and they're certainly not ones I'd run home to watch on cable. I especially dislike TRIUMPH OF THE WILL but its power and virtuoso filmmaking techniques are undeniable. Meanwhile, I absolutely love BARBARELLA but i'll never confuse it with a good movie.

careful, edgy... you're developing a stutter.

[u:7a975d5067]My revised rankings[/u:7a975d5067] In light of Mr.Dickshot's Albert Belle comment, i went back and looked at my rankings, and annotated them to show how many categories used by Baseball Reference (the 4 HOF criteria categories referenced by JD) that each player scored above the "average" HOF player in each particular category. Here are the categories and average HOF scores: Black Ink Test = 27 (pitchers = 40) Gray Ink Test = 144 (pitchers = 185) HOF Standards = 50 HOF Monitor = 100 I also noted how many of the top 10 similar players listed for each player are in the HOF. I've included the numbers for relief pitchers, too, but these numbers just don't seem relevant as criteria for assessment of the modern closer. [u:7a975d5067]YES[/u:7a975d5067] Bert Blyleven [3/4 tests; 8/10 HOF sims] Rich Gossage [1/4; 2/10] Blyleven's stats are undeniable, exceeding the average HOFer scores in 3 of the 4 tests. 8 of the 10 most similar pitchers are in the HOF, including the top 3 most similar (Sutton, Perry and Jenkins). The only argument against him is that his peak was not significant enough or long enough to justify election, and he was a mere "accumulator" of stats. My view is that if your amongst the top guys at your position for at least 5 years, and if you're at least excellent for 10 years overall, then you're due consideration. With Blyleven, what i see is a guy who was in the top 10 in WHIP 11x; top 10 in Adjusted ERA+ 11x and top 10 in Cy Young voting 4x, and he accomplished this over the course of a 20-year period (eg, he finished 4th in ERA+ in both 1971 and 1989, and was in the top 10 9x in between). He also pitched well in the post-season, going 5-1 with a 2.40 ERA, helping 2 different teams win WS titles. I'm not a big Sutton fan either, but Blyleven was better. Sutton was hardly ever the #1 pitcher on his own staff, and he did nothing in the post-season. While Blyleven is certainly not a 1st Tier / 1st Ballot HOFer, you have to squint really hard while bending over backwards to argue that Blyleven doesn't deserve eventual election. As for Gossage, based on both peak performance and duration of effectiveness throughout his career, or any other criteria one can imagine ("fame", "intimidation", whatever), he is a HOFer. Sutter is a closer call because his career, though with a very high peak, was of limited duration. I can see it going either way with him. As for Smith, he had a long career and compiled stats, but his peak was not distinct enough to get him in. [u:7a975d5067]BORDERLINE[/u:7a975d5067] Jim Rice - probably yes [3/4; 4/10] Andre Dawson - probably yes [2/4; 5/10] Jack Morris - probably no [2/4; 6/10] Dale Murphy - probably no [2/4; 1/10] Dave Parker - probably no [2/4; 2/10] Albert Belle- probably no [2/4; 1/10] Alan Trammell - probably no [1/4; 2/10] Lee Smith - probably no [1/4; 1/10] Bruce Sutter - probably yes [0] I moved Belle up into the borderline category. I think there are solid arguments for Rice an Dawson, but Morris, Murphy, Parker and Belle come up just short, IMO. Trammell only enters the conversation because he put up his numbers as a GG SS. [u:7a975d5067]FILL OUT THE BALLOT[/u:7a975d5067] Dave Concepcion [1/4; 3/10] Tommy John [1/4; 6/10] Don Mattingly [1/4; 2/10] Steve Garvey [1/4; 1/10] [u:7a975d5067]GOOD-BYE, ALL-STARS[/u:7a975d5067] Dwight Gooden [0; 1/10] Ozzie Guillen [0; 2/10] Orel Hershiser [0; 2/10] Rick Aguilera [0] Will Clark [0] Gary Gaetti [0] Gregg Jefferies [0] Doug Jones [0] Willie McGee [0] Walt Weiss [0] John Wetteland [0] Gary DiSarcina [0] [u:7a975d5067]AN HONOR JUST TO BE NOMINATED[/u:7a975d5067] Alex Fernandez [0] Hal Morris [0]

saying he's better than Gerald Williams is damning with the faintest of praise.

oh, and by the way... Tike's career OPS+ = 80. Yes, I said "80". Hardly a talent worth getting excited about.

we lost a Prentice and picked up a Tike. Do the Mets have a "Redman" quota? Damn racist organization... I guess this means a return of John Franco is definitely out! Speaking of red men, who was that St. John's pitching prospect we had once upon a time... Terry Bross? Eric Hillman? I forget which one it was.

in other words: "double ditto."