Vic Sage

Assuming Mets sign Ramon Hernandez and can't trade Matsui... [u:031ad2f793]Starting Lineup:[/u:031ad2f793] ss- Reyes 2b- Matsui cf- Beltran Rf- Floyd 3b- Wright 1b- Jacobs Rf- Nady C- R.Hernandez [u:031ad2f793]Bench (5 - 6):[/u:031ad2f793] - Castro © - V.Diaz (Rf/Lf/1b/ph) - Woodward (ss/2b/3b/1b/Of) - Graffanino? - CFer/pinch-runner? - LHed Pher = _____ Sweeney? Valent? Hatteberg?

This deal blows monkey chunks. Cameron -- an all-star CFer with 2 GGs in his trophy case, with career .880 OPS [340.ob + .440slg],and an OPS+ = 106, with an average line = .250/90r/80rbi/25hr/30sb... ... is traded straight up for... Nady -- a part-time corner OFer/1bman, no speed, not a defensive whizz at a key position, with 50 points less of OPS (and an OPS+ of 98), who hasn't been able to establish himself on an offense-starved team. He's a AAAA-player on the wrong side of a big platoon differential. Yes, Nady is 27. And next year, he has the potential to be 28. If Cameron's healthy, however, he's as likely to reproduce his career average numbers at age 33 as he was at age 31. 33 ain't old in outfielder years. This deal only happens because Omar is under orders to dump salary. They wanted to move Cameron without having to eat any salary, so this was "the best they could do". I have no doubt that this was the best they could do, under the circumstances... but what was the rush? With a number of teams desperate for a decent CFer, with nothing available on the FA market, Mets were in position to wait it out and sell him off to the highest bidder. So what if they had to risk keeping his contract? This ain't Oakland. They've lopped of Piazza's deal and some others, and there is no reason on Earth that a NYC franchise couldn't afford a $6.5m RFer in ADDITION to a closer, a catcher and a backup 1bman. I don'[t care WHAT else they do with the saved money. With their revenues, and a new sports network on the way, the Mets should be able to afford to keep him AND spend the money on other players, too. If Nady was all they could get for Cameron at this point, because of Cameron's uncertain health status, then they should've waited until his health status was more certain, or until teams were more willing to bear the risk out of their own sense of urgency. Monkey chunks, i tell ya... big, gooey, yellow-ish monkey chunks.

it ALWAYS depends on how much we give up. so lets put that issue aside for a moment. Are Huff and Baez worth having? I've liked Huff alot, from a distance, without looking very closely. So I would've said yes, but the Rottweiler makes some interesting observations about him that give me pause. Especially the continuing drop in power for 3 straight years. Baez? i agree that he's no better than Looper was 2 years ago... which isn't bad but isn't an "ace" either. As to price... I would LOVE to give them back Zambrano, but i don't think they'd be interested. I'm not so pursuaded by Seo, Heilman or Petit that i'd reject a deal that included one of them, but not 2. How about Trax, Petit and maybe Bannister, or other similar low-minors prospect? If we got them and flipped them (+pitcher) for Manny, i wouldn't be heartbroken. Frankly, i think the D-Rays still owe us something more for Kazmir, so they should just give us Huff and Baez for Zambrano straight up!

also getting votes are ex-mets Torre and John Gibbons.

]Ah, it's always nice when someone can interject their biased and bigoted views about religion into a discussion about baseball. My point wasn't about any particular religion, but about the type of thinking that says "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know." But as long as you've mentioned it... yes, i'm extremely biased against the notion that the Earth is flat, or that it's the center of the universe around which all other heavenly bodies revolve, or that it was created 4004 years ago. Yes, I'm quite bigoted against the closed-minded. I'm intolerant of the intolerant. In fact, i'm totally biased, bigoted and intolerant when it comes to folks who surrender the use of the very same frontal lobes that they believe their god gave them, which, in my view, is analagous to the thinking at work behind a statement like "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know." HOWEVER, I have absolutely no problem with the notion of faith, or with people who have it. It's simply belief in an unproven theory about that which is unknowable. I have faith. I couldn't be a Mets fan without it. As long as somebody doesn't let their faith interfere with the use of their logical faculties in order to learn all they can about that which IS knowable... then i've got no problems at all. In fact, i'd be happy for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools. It's just a matter of context. If it was taught as part of a curriculum about comparative religions, where students were exposed to the fundamental tenets and texts of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, i could see it being of great value. It just shouldn't be taught in the context of science, any more than science should be taught in the context of learning French. Science is a methodology that has the potential to answer "what, where, when and how" but it will never be able to answer "why", which may be the most important question of all. Some turn to faith for the answer to "why"... some to other philosophies. I, myself, have more faith in the collective insight of humanity to figure itself out, rather than reliance on metaphysics, so i look to "Art" for new ways to think about "why". I respect anybody whose looking for those answers by whatever path they may choose. But i do admit a loathing for those who are so complacent as to think they've already GOT the answer and so will consider no other ideas, or those who are sor unengaged in life as to not be seeking at all WP, it wasn't my intent to offend you by my clumsy attempt to exress this feeling, but so be it. You'll survive, as will I.

]Well, it was actually RF defense I was worried about (although Manny's defense at LF is marginally troubling to me, as is his age & baserunning--all outweighed by his bat so far), Why would moving Floyd to RF, where he was a starter for the Marlins just a few years ago, create a RF defense to worry about? He was practically a gold-glover this year, with a great number of assists. Do you really think he'd be such a defensive LIABILITY in RF as to be any factor at all in whether or not to acquire Manny's bat? Yes, Manny in LF is troublesome, but as i said, you don't necessarily pass on a bat like his because you're concerned about LF DEFENSE! ]but I think you missed my bigger point, which is that if we're going to give up that much, we shouldn't have to move people out of position--we should get exactly what we need handed to us on a silver platter. I don't think giving up Cammy, Trax and Diaz (which was MY proposal), is giving up so much that we need to be too concerned about Cliff's move back to RF. ]IMO, exactly what we need = Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard. well, i'd agree, of course. They're both young, relatively inexpensive and highly productive. But that's precisely why i don't think we could get either of those guys without giving up significantly more than we might have to for an older, very expensive headcase.

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. In other words: "don't bother with me with data... i know what i know". When I see a post like that, i just have to shake my head and move along. But it's the kind of thinking that gets "intelligent design" taught in our schools as an "alternative scientific theory" of the origin of life, so i can't help but comment. Religion is a closed system of thought, where what is known is determined by faith in a theory of existence that requires no measurable data and is intended to be fixed and impervious to change. Science is an open system of thought, where what is known is determined through the use of logical methodologies to create and measure data which forms the basis of theories that are continually challenged over time, as more data becomes available. Now, you can have faith that you know, or you can seek to learn what can be known... it's up to you, of course. But don't bring that stuff around here without expecting to be called on it.

- Cameron, Trax & V. Diaz (+ Bannister, if they include Shoppach) We take on the 3 remaining years of Manny's contract (with all its cost, potential risk and potential reward), without sacrificing either the future or the present, Boston gets rid of huge payroll obligation/problem-child who wants out, and they get a desperately needed solid SPer, a solid CFer to replace Damon, and a young bat with some promise. They can also have a 2nd tier pitching prospect like Bannister if they include Shoppach. I'd also have to consider including Petit instead of Bannister + V.Diaz (since I don't have much confidence in AA pitchers), but any deal for Manny that includes Milledge should be laughed at. As for dealing for "need" and "position"... thats a crock. The Mets have a DESPERATE need for a .300/30hr/120rbi bat in the middle of the lineup. He can play LF, and Cliff can either move to RF or 1B (both of which he's played before, adequately). If you can get a bat like Manny's, you shouldn't concern yourself overmuch with, of all things, LF DEFENSE!

Norton was great in FEAR, but he's usually great. The film was mediocre. Newman's oscar in VERDICT was well deserved, and Mamet's script and Lumet's direction make this a terrific film, in my view.

he carried my fantasy team, the Norrin Raddicals, to a 2nd place finish. And i had reyes, too. okay, i had Ben Sheets, Oliver Perez and Corey Patterson, but still...

yes, if its the Hall of Fame located in Narnia. As for the one in Cooperstown, the 1bmen there wouldn't let Mex play in any of their reindeer games.

Top dozen courtroom dramas: 12 angry men - i've seen it a thousand times and its never less than totally compelling To kill a Mockingbird - an iconic performance in an iconic movie Witness for the prosecution - Laughton in the perfect courtroom drama Inherit the Wind - how could you not list this movie? Anatomy of a Murder - Jimmy Stewart in Preminger's classic Paths of Glory - Kubrick + Kirk + Kourt-martial = Kwite a movie! Breaker Morant - this Aussie "Boer War" courtmartial movie is terrific Judgment at Nuremberg - bloated, dated, but still powerful The Verdict - Paul Newman + Mamet script A few Good Men - overrated but entertaining Young Mr. Lincoln - Ford + Fonda = Funomenal! Compulsion - Leopold & Loeb defended by Orson Welles!

]Vic Sage - "If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher, put him back behind the plate..." Rockin Doc - "That would put him ahead of Mackey Sasser". That's my point. If Sasser could throw the ball back to the pitcher, he'd have been considered a pretty good catcher, considering he was a line-drive bashing LHed hitter. He didn't hit especially well for a 1bman, but for a catcher, he'd have been top 10%. But he couldn't throw the ball back to the catcher, so he went bye-bye. If Jacobs CAN throw the ball back to the pitcher, then he'd have to do all the other stuff OFF THE CHARTS BAD in order to justify pushing his bat to 1b, where he'll never be anything more than average offensively, based on his overall history to date (not just 1 month in the majors). Its just a matter of how BAD does he have to be to not get a shot behind the plate? Because we simply CAN'T believe he's the answer to our offensive woes at 1B. He'd be a stopgap and a backup. There will always be alot better hitters available at 1b than at catcher, so if there is even the remotest shot that Jacobs could play 120 games behind the plate, you simply HAVE TO find out. you have to.

i'm ok with trying to solve the bullpen internally. But I'd still be happy to trade Cammy for best available equivalent talent if we could use Bullpen + Cammy money on Giles and Konerko. Even if we don't trade Cameron, I still think our NUMBER 1 FA priority should be a slugging 1bman like Konerko, rather than a closer.

You can't have too much pitching. And there are probably a number of good young relievers setting up for decent closers (Twins come immediately to mind; i'm sure there are others if i bothered to look around) that could solve our bullpen problems alot more cheaply than the $8-$9m/yr for 3-4 yrs that Wagner, Ryan, Hoffman will likely command. This allows us to spend the money on Konerko's power and Giles' OB% and all-around play. I know folks think that Cammy is worth more than some relievers, but 1) I don't, because he's going into that "injured and aging" phase of his career, at $7m/yr; 2) his offense in RF can be replaced more easily than fixing the bullpen; and 3) if he IS worth more, than they might be able to GET more.

don't like signing aging closers to long-term, big-money deals. sign Konerko and B.Giles, then trade Cameron for pitching. Put Jacobs back behind the plate and play Whooze at second...no, wait... Whooz on first; Whats on second.

Then you're suffering from an occular disorder. I don't give a ratzass how long Jacobs' career is. I'm not his mother or his manager. After 5 years, he'll be a free-agent and play wherever he wants anyway. At any rate, I'd rather have 5 years of a great hitting catcher, than 10 years of a decent hitting 1bman. what i care about is getting offensive production BEHIND THE PLATE right now, where its more difficult to find and more expensive to keep, and acquire more readily available hitters at 1b elsewhere.

Mighty Mike got voted Topps Player of the year in the Eastern league. He didn't do too badly at Shea, either. If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher, put him back behind the plate and stop chasing after Molina and/or Hernandez! http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051101&content_id=32434&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

]The Mets are in the midst of the longest championship drought in their history Well, as far as Mets winning/losing cycles go, they've been pretty consistent: 1) 1962-1968 (7 seasons) = .347 winning% (57-105 avg) Casey's loveable losers... can't anybody here play this game? 2) 1969-1976 (8 seasons) = .517% (84-78), 2 East Div., 2 NLC, 1 WS a .500 era with 1 amazin' year, plus the 'ya gotta believes' lose the WS 3) 1977-1983 (7 seasons) = .407% (66-96) the children's crusade, unloveable losers sold to Doubleday 4) 1984-1990 (7 seasons) = .587% (95-67), 2 Div, 1 NLC, 1 WS the golden age, but fell short al but once 5) 1991-1996 (6 seasons) = .430% (70-92) the worst team money could buy 6) 1997-2001 (5 seasons) = .554% (90-72), 2 WC, 1 NLC Bobby Vee's boys don't go all the way, but play the 2nd best era of Mets ball. 7) 2002-2004 (3 seasons) = .436% (71-91) the 2nd Worst Team money could buy 8) 2005 = 83-79 If this season ushers in the beginning of a new "up cycle", it could mark 2002-2004 as the shortest "down cycle" in team history. As for post season play, we're a post-season team every decade or so (11-13 years). 1) 1969, 1973 2) 1986, 1988 3) 1999, 2000 If 2005 is indeed the beginning of a new cycle and not just a blip, the truncated 2002-2004 could indicate a shorter wait for the next post-season period. I'm thinking that by the 2008-2009 era, we should have a championship-caliber team.

WE WANT JAKE! WE WANT JAKE! A non-throwing catcher who can play decent defense otherwise and hits .280-.300/20+hrs LHed can start for my team any day.

if Jacobs can still catch, we platoon him with Castro. We sign Konerko. We make due at 2b. We sign Ryan. We trade Cameron + Trax for Brian Giles + Linebrink We're good to go. Reyes Beltran Floyd Konerko Wright Giles Jacobs Matsui VDiaz, Castro, A.Hernandez, Woodward Pedro Glavne Benson Seo Zambrano Ryan Linebrink Heilmann

Frank Capra is one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of the medium. So much so, he ultimately became an adjective... "capra-esque"... describing a story in which an idealistic individual overcomes overwhelming odds in the face of systemic opppression, expressing the depression-era American mythology of tragedy defeated by optimism and good ole American morality. His greatest films were all made during a 20-year period, mostly concentrated in the mid-late 1930s. It was a relatively short peak, as great careers go, but it was extraordinarily high one. He began in the silent era, idolizing John ford. He worked on Mack Sennett's "our gang" comedy shorts, and wrote and directed the early work of Harry Langdon. "The Strong Man" (1926) is Langdon's best film, and still worth seeing today. But it isn't until AMERICAN MADNESS (1932) that Capra finally starts to becomes "Capra"... an artist commenting on the social conditions of his time. Still, with this film and the subsequent BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN (1933), LOST HORIZON (1937), MEET JOHN DOE (1941), ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) and STATE OF THE UNION (1948), Capra works in a darker, moodier, more tragic, less comic mode than we generally think of when characterizing his work, and it was a style that never resulted in much commercial success for him, despite resulting in some brilliant films. Instead, it's Capra's romantic comedy IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934) that launched his career as one of the top directors of his time. Beyond commercial success, however, its not until MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN (1936) that you see the melding of the romantic, the comic and the populist threads in the style known as "Capra-Corn" in its fully developed form. It is the signature style of DEEDS, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU (1938), MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939) and MEET JOHN DOE (though this one is less comic than the rest). These films came to represent America in the 1930s, both to the audiences of the time and subsequent generations. It was about the defeat of totalitarian institutions and cynicism by a brave and pure christ-like individual who redeems us all. An Italian immigrant, Capra loved his adopted country, so after serving in WWI, Capra now wanted to serve in WWII. He did so by using his skills for propaganda in creating the documentary series called WHY WE FIGHT. During the war, he also managed to churn out a delightful adaptation of the play ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944). After the war, he made 2 flops, including his last great film ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) and the DOE-like STATE OF THE UNION (1948), which showed his formula to have run its course. He went to work in TV in the 50s, without creating much of significance. His final film, Damon Runyon's POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961) is a ham-fisted remake of his original LADY FOR A DAY (1933), but it does have a terrific Peter Falk performance and its the first film of the incredibly beautiful Ann-Margret. For those facts alone, its worth seeing. It seems no coincidence that Capra's career was at its best during FDR's extended presidency. Like FDR, Capra offered hope in a dark time, and like FDR, said we are in fact our brother's keeper. He became unhip and outdated at some point (probably the 1970s), but its unfair and his films are still important, moving documents that record the idealized America that exists in the immigrant's dream. And if you can't dream it, you can't be it. A dozen to see: The Strong Man (1926) Bitter Tea of General Yen (1933) It Happened One Night (1934) Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) Lost Horizon (1937) You Can't Take It with You (1938) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Meet John Doe (1941) Arsenic and Old Lace (1944) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) State of the Union (1948) Pocketful of Miracles (1961)

i loved the W & G shorts, but this just wasn't funny. Not laugh-out-loud funny anyway, not the way the shorts are. I was, frankly, bored. Not bad, just disappointing.

building a team around "pitching and defense"... its an expression you hear all the time. And its just plain wrong. Pitching IS defense... or at least a significant part of it. The other part of defense is FIELDING. So, if you say you want to build a team around "pitching and fielding", at least its a correctly STATED position... even though its one i disagree with, since winning requires both defense AND offense. Now, if you say you want to build around pitching, fielding and OB%... i could definitely get behind that, as it addresses both sides of the ball. The reality, however, is that you often have to choose between fielding and hitting. As for me, I'd take the hitting (especially OB%) over fielding, because good pitching can make up for the defensive deficiencies. So for me, building a winner is about pitching and OB%... with power, fielding and speed (in that order) important accessories. I'd rather have a platoon of Hojo and Kevin Mitchell at SS than a season's worth of Rafael Santana, if Doc Gooden is on the mound.

Couldn't Victor Diaz fill that need?