Vic Sage

Centerfield wrote: Never heard of the guy, but I like the stuff I'm reading. Smart, young, personable. Willing to listen to analytics. Not full of himself. Also, I don't think Cory Kluber and Trevor Bauer are as devastating as some of the other elite pitchers. So getting that kind of performance out of them is something. Hopefully he can bring some of that success here. More than anything I'm glad this is done and over. Let's work on getting some players. This. Plus Callaway gets bonus points for not being Manny Acta.

as painful a memory as it is, Beltran watching that curve ball called strike 3 wasn't the reason the game or the series was lost. He took way too much shit for that.

BLADE RUNNER is one of my favorite movies ever. I have watched at least one version of it every year since the 1980s, which is easier now that i have the "briefcase" collection. I've read numerous treatises about its impact on film-making over the last 35 years; its relation to Dick's original book; its commentary on global warming; its use of Noir elements... I even recall reading an interesting essay about its use of "eye" imagery. Is Deckard a replicant? No, nor should he be, but the debate goes on. So i had mixed feelings about the very idea of a sequel; equal parts dread and desire... like an anticipated rendevous with the protagonist of the vagina dentata horror film, TEETH. Was the new film going to resolve the Deckard/replicant debate in the worst possible way, or otherwise shit on other aspects of its progenitor, thus undermining the original? Was it going to be a wrong-headed disaster? When i heard Villanueve was going to direct, i became more hopeful. He is an interesting filmmaker, with a strong Dick-ian streak of questioning the underlying nature of reality in his stories, and an evocative visual style. But he's done some stinkers, too... so again, hope mixed with dread. And Jared Leto? Oy. I watched it with my family last Monday. Then i saw it again, this time in IMAX, on Wednesday. I was greatly relieved. Why? 1) It's great; 2) It stands on its own, while still evoking the original; 3) Its intense visuals of a decaying future are matched by a thoughtful story; 4) Ford hasn't been this good in a while; 5) It alludes to, but does not resolve, the Deckard/replicant issue; 6) It uses Leto in a limited, and thus more effective, way; 7) Great score that uses motifs of the Vangelis score but takes it in an original direction; and 8) No badly executed voice-over. Is it a flawless movie? Um, no. It's too long (by about 1/2 hour), and its deliberate pacing can be a slog for those not engaged with the story or the characters. And the characters probably aren't developed nearly well enough for those not already invested in this narrative. The story's reversals might be too clumsily executed, and its philosophical navel-gazing can be wearisome. And Ryan Gosling's emotionless "Joe" (at least at the outset) might not be everybody's idea of a compelling protagonist. But the original film had a lot of flaws, too. Both films remind me of Cindy Crawford, the gorgeous supermodel of the 1980s-90s, who had a big black mole on her face. She wasn't beautiful DESPITE the mole; her beauty was intensified by it. "Perfect imperfections", as John Legend sang. And like the original, this film has apparently flopped, too, despite good reviews. And as its critical reputation grows over the years and it, too, becomes a slowly discovered flawed masterpiece, I'll have other versions to look forward to when they release the work-print, the director's cut, the European version, and the "final" cut, and they then put them all together in another briefcase collection. So i've got that going for me... which is nice.

Edgy MD wrote: Well, then. No need to wait for the Mets to be relegated. Ashie's right out. Ashie wouldn't be the only one out. The regional sports networks, with long-term contracts with their local teams, would be right out, if they couldn't guarantee a major league team for their market. And player contracts would have to go year-to-year, because paying a guy $20M/yr when your a major-league team participating in major-league revenues is one thing, but having to pay for big multi-year contracts when your revenues are cut by A LOT would cause teams to go into bankruptcy. Or they'd have to all go to split contracts, with different Division I and II compensation, and a player making $20m 1 year, who has an MVP season, gets cut down to a minor league salary the next year because he played on a shitty team? So yeah, the player's union is out. And of course all the dependent entities relying on major-league teams (support services, vendors, community venues, etc) would take a huge hit for any team that is relegated to a 2nd division. How many season tickets and luxury boxes is a team selling in the 2nd division? What's its in-stadium ad revenue look like then? It's media deals? All these things are planned for over a long-term with relatively stable and projectable income streams. Relegation is such a logistically absurd concept for MLB teams that my preference (either for it or against it) is utterly irrelevant. As is everybody's. Cuz its impossible. Hey, lets put a franchise on the moon while we're at it. The Coors effect would be nothing compared to a lunar long-ball. And chicks dig the long ball. It'll be HUGE!

i said 720. What do i win?

Assuming the Portland / Montreal expansions: two2 4-division leagues that are grouped based on geography, while maintaining as much of the current alignment as possible (Milwaukee and Houston would have to switch back to their previous leagues, and Arizona would move to AL, with both new teams added to NL). This way, each region would have 1 AL team and 1 NL team, so you would see every team in every region. Each division would play home-n-home series against matching division in other league, minimizing travel, maximizing rivalries, retaining inter-league play but keeping it manageable. Including 2 wild cards in each league (along with the 4 division winners) increases chances of late season races [2 WC teams get 1-game play-in; 2ndR/best of 5 series (top record gets 1stR bye) or all 6 teams re-seeded based on record, with top 2 getting bye, and starting with best 2 out of 3 series. Extended playoff season possible with shortened regular season back to 154 games. [u:177gqofj]NorthEast[/u:177gqofj] Tor / [Mtl] NYY / NYM Bos / Phi Det / Pitt [u:177gqofj]Central-Atlantic[/u:177gqofj] (Milw) / Atl Cleve / Cinn Balt / DC TB / Mia [u:177gqofj]Midwest[/u:177gqofj] Mn / Col ChW / ChC KC / StL Tx / (Hou) [u:177gqofj]West[/u:177gqofj] Sea / [Port] Oak / SF LAA / LAD (Az) / SD

Thoughts?

i think Mags is right, mathematically, that a system that awards (+) for good performances, but no (-) for bad perfs is likely to favor players with larger swings in their perfs. That's just math, right? But i don't know that it necessarily effected the Sewald vote, and i don't know that it matters a bit either way. The Schaeffer is not an attempt to create an unassailable new sabrmetric statistic, but is merely a way to keep everybody together and interactive over the course of a long season. And the "player of the year" is a way to keep a diary of our thoughts over the year, and from year to year. We've built a history together and the Schaefer is one of the ways we've recorded that history. I don't think it's a breach of conduct to offer critique of the system, perhaps toward evolving it as we move forward, and the day the results are announced are exactly the time to have that conversation. But as i said, i don't care to improve it; it's "accuracy" is only important in that it accurately reflect what the board is feeling at any given moment, and cumulatively, and creates a record of those judgments. Perhaps the creation of a negative score option would allow for that, but I leave that to Ben to decide. Mr. Grimm does a great job of keeping it all going despite widespread lack of involvement. I participate sporadically each season (even some games that i just evaluate by the box score and news reports) but i tend to lose my will over the course of a bad year. I'll try to do better next season, and hopefully the Mets will too.

majestic and Hellenic... how about the Syracuse Butt-Fuckers (NTTAWWT!)

awesome, dude!

LAMENTER!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated. Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20. oh, i agree. It's silly to "tank" in baseball, where no one draft pick is as likely to impact a franchise as it is in basketball or even football. But once a season is lost and your team is playing for next year, it's more important to give young players playing time, and a chance to develop, and an opportunity to see what you have, than it is to scrape the barrel for every win. In other words, I'd have rather seen more Cecchini and less Reyes coming into September, regardless of their relative performances in that period. We know what Reyes is, at least as in infielder. We don't quite yet know what Cecchini is and whether he figures into the team's future plans. Ditto with Aoki. giving him ABs over anybody else (including seeing if Reyes is good enough in the OF as to make him more desirable as a general utility guy) just to get a marginally better chance to win a game in September is countered by the upside of marginally better draft position and a chance to see what we have for next year. I don't think its a dire situation, either way. And i don't want players and coaches ever to go through the motions. But i think part of Sandy's thinking in stripping the roster of most of its available veterans was to force Terry into actually playing the kids, which he wasn't going to do unless forced.

And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated.

I like Nimmo's game and he's an ideal platoon partner for Lagares. Smith and Rosario have shown me enough to anticipate their further development. Is Plawecki for real? If so, he can take the majority of ABs from the oft-injured and inconsistent d'Arnaud. Aoki has shown enough to be a useful LH bat and 5th Ofer off the bench, and Reyes has enough left to be a low-cost utility player. Cabrera would be adequate (for the price) at either 2b or 3b. To me, though, the real issue is whether to let Flores get a shot as the full-time 2bman or bring in a FA with a legit power bat, at either 2b or 3b (with either Cabrera or Flores taking the other slot). Oh, and a #3 SPer (preferably a LHP) that can give us 180-200 decent innings would be nice (ie, essential), and a backup closer/set up guy, too. projected, based on current 40-man roster: 1) Rosario -ss 2) Nimmo* -cf 3) Conforto* -rf 4) Cespedes -lf 5) Cabrera# -3b 6) Flores - 2b 7) D.Smith* -1b 8) d'Arnaud - C [u:3vnsaa6r]bench:[/u:3vnsaa6r] 1) Plawecki - c 2) Lagares - of 3) Aoki* - of 4) Reyes# - mi/ut 5) TJ Rivera - ci/ut [u:3vnsaa6r]rotation:[/u:3vnsaa6r] 1) DeGrom 2) Syndegaard 3) Harvey 4) Harvey / Matz* / Wheeler 5) Harvey / Matz* / Wheeler / Lugo / Gsellman / Montero [u:3vnsaa6r]bullpen:[/u:3vnsaa6r] 1) Familia [CL] 2) Ramos [RH set up] 3) Blevins* [LH set up] 4) Sewald / Bradford [RH MI] 5) Smoker* [LH MI] 6) Sewald / Bradford / Robles / Goeddel / Callahan / McGowan / Rhame [MI/long] 7) Wheeler / Lugo / Gsellman / Montero / Flexen / Milone* / Pill* / Molina [long/spot-starter]

41Forever wrote: Terry deserves a rousing ovation on his final home game with a scoreboard tribute and whatever else the team can muster for the guy who has managed more games than anyone else in franchise history, including a National League championship on his resume. this. I'm somewhat taken aback by Cooby's atypical display of antipathy toward our soon-to-be former manager. Did Terry kick your dog, Coobster?

The most expensive seats in a stadium are behind netting. Why do those sitting in the less expensive seats along the sidelines deserve to be put in mortal danger? I can't believe this is even a conversation.

"Ugly" is a subjective conclusion, not a factual one, and I love that sculpture and find its satiric, kitchy style hilarious and beautiful. Red Grooms is one of the 20th century's greatest artists and he could surely design a better "home run apple" than the boring thing we have now, that would stand on its own as a piece of art. But the `Pons don't have the taste, interest, money or cajones to commission a piece of public art with that sort of impact. Instead, we get a bridge and a Shake Shack. See how i turned your innocent, amusing critique of Marlins Park into a diatribe against the `Pons? I bet i could do that with any reference you care to make. Now THERE'S a challenge...

because you can never have enough marginal RHed relief pitcher prospects. What is that... like a dozen now?

Edgy MD wrote: Juan Lagares, your new #3 hitter. Oy, gevalt.

Edgy MD wrote: I agree. If the Mets accept my application to manage next season, I open the season with Nimmo and Lageres platooning between Céspedes and Conforto, and adjust from there. Obviously that becomes a more workable deployment if I get a good look at how he plays center now. He looks like a better athlete than Conforto to my eyes, if not necessarily a more skilled outfielder. That second part can change! that's exactly the way i'd do it, too. Nimmo looks like an ideal #2 hitter... LHed, patient enough to take pitches and let a leadoff hitter steal, runs ok, decent BA, great OB. Minimal power does less harm there, too.

5' 10" / 223(!!) What's with the "!!" ? You got a problem with that height/weight? I'M that height/weight, too, ya stinkin bastid. Ok, wait... now that i think about it, that's pretty fat for a ballplayer. Not "Dom Smith" fat, but, you know... fat.

my family loved it, particularly Lin-Manuel's songs.

It's my impression that sub-fora get less traffic (I could be wrong), so that stuff gets missed if its not in the main baseball forum. For instance, i think the film review forum should really just be threads in the non-baseball forum. That way, people who never go to the film review forum will still get to see that there is discussion happening about a particular film or film-related subject. I don't see the point of the segregation. i get the point of archive fora, or complaints/red light fora, because you don't want that stuff clogging up the main fora, but as for the rest... rather than creating another sub-forum, i say go the other way and collapse the promotion and flim review sub-fora into the non-baseball forum. If we want to have insights into other stadia readily accessible, we could just pin it to the top of the baseball forum, couldn't we?

he loved CITIZEN KANE so much, he was even willing to watch the "battle for Citizen Kane" pbs documentary right after it (it's about Hearst vs Welles). NETWORK is still over-the-top fun, and he appreciated that one too. I've made some revisions to the schedule. Here are the upcoming films, at this point: 7. Sullivan’s Travels (41)* / True Romance (95) 8. Casablanca (42)* / Annie Hall (77)* 9. Double Indemnity (44)* / Fargo (96) 10. White Heat (49) / Goodfellas (90)* 11. The Third Man (49)-n / Saving Private Ryan (98)* 12. Sunset Boulevard (50)* / The Player (91) [or May Favorite Year (82)] 13. African Queen (51)* / Apocalypse Now (79)* 14. Singin’ in the Rain (52)* / The Producers (68) 15. High Noon (52)* / Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (69)* 16. On the Waterfront (54)* /Raging Bull (80)* 17. The Searchers (56)* / Taxi Driver (76)* 18. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (56) / Close Encounters of 3rd Kind (76) 19. 12 Angry Men (57)* / Defending Your Life (91) 20. Vertigo (58)* / Blue Velvet (86) 21. Touch of Evil (58) / L.A. Confidential (97) 22. Some Like it Hot (59)* / Tootsie (82)* 23. Psycho (60)* / Silence of the Lambs (91)* 24. The Apartment (60)* / American Beauty (91) 25. West Side Story (61)* / Hair (80) 26. Lawrence of Arabia (62)* 27. Bonnie & Clyde (67)* / Untouchables (86) 28. The Graduate (67)* / Animal House (78) 29. Wild Bunch (69)*/ Unforgiven (92)* 30. M*A*S*H* (70)* / Platoon (86)* 31. French Connection (71)* / Sev7en (95) [or Robocop (86)] 32. A Clockwork Orange (71)* / Terminator 2 (91) 33. American Graffiti (73)*/ Ferris Bueller’s Day off (86) 34. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (75)* / Shawshank Redemption (94)* 35. The Godfather (72) * / Godfather II (74)* * = AFI top 100

So we just watched MALTESE FALCON and CHINATOWN. Matt liked MF alot, and CHINATOWN was ok, but less so. Franklly, i agree. CHINATOWN is better in my memory than it is on my tv. FALCON, however, is timeless. next week: CITIZEN KANE and NETWORK.