Vic Sage

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Vic Sage wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: OK for a flyer I guess. a flyer shouldn't cost $10m. Who cares. It's still a low-risk flyer as I see it A "flyer" is a guy you invite to ST on a minor league deal or incentive-laden contract (like Wacha got). Its a guy who, if he doesn't perform, you can just cut him with minimal financial repercussions. I don't think Porcello at $10m guaranteed is a low-risk signing, because that's $10m less that BVW has to spend on the pen and, at that price, he's now penciled in as our 5th starter going into ST. If he sucks, we're still going to be stuck with him, just like we are with Familia at that price. They're not going to eat the contract; it would give the Pons indigestion.

time for a list of best racing movies!

Ahhhh, McQueen. King of cool. He did a lot of his own driving in the movie, having competed in actual races.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: OK for a flyer I guess. a flyer shouldn't cost $10m.

Brandon Nimmo Michael Conforto Carlos Beltran Armando Benitez Kevin McReynolds Good players. Seemingly good people. For some reason draw the ire of a large segments of the fan population for some reason. But everyone loves Joe Fucking McEwing. Nimmo - not hated; just frustrating due to injuries, Ks and perceived "passivity" at the plate. But i think appreciated for his overall hustle, enthusiasm, and high OBP; Conforto - not hated; liked, mostly, but a bit frustrated by his perceived failure to "put it all together" so far. Still, even at his current level, he's pretty darn good; Beltran - hated in some circles, because of his bad 1st year (which set the tone) and the K looking against that Wainright curveball. But is among the best (maybe THE best) position player the Mets have ever had. Benitez - closers are always hated, unless they're somebody else's closer... than they're coveted. He blew games in the WS; nuff said. McReynolds - Similar to Nimmo and Beltran in perceived "passivity" at the plate, but unlike Nimmo and Beltran, he took that "i'd rather be huntin" attitude on the field, into the clubhouse, out in public, and all the way back to Arkansas. Fie upon him -- FIE, I SAY! fans don't like guys who they perceive as not giving a shit. Whatever else you want to say about SuperJoe, he appeared to give a shit. Granted, sometimes this stuff is just a false narrative fueled by the media... but sometimes a player's disinterest just gets picked up on by the fans and they reject the player.

Edgy MD wrote: Thirty films. That's a nice round number. No need to cast aside the early stuff. Let them stand or fall in competition. well, its 31 films, but sure. It doesn't really matter, though; nobody coming out of that bracket is going to beat 7 SAMURAI in the 1 v 4 quarter-finals.

I read that BVW is still in on getting Sterling Marte, and is considering trading Nimmo to make room for him. I don't get it. Nimmo is younger, has a significantly higher lifetime OPS+ and OPS, and is on an upward trajectory with his prime years just ahead. Marte has been productive, a 20hr/40sb guy with a solid glove in CF, but he's 31. His range has diminished and his SBs are going down (indicators of decline). His speed is his best asset, and it doesn't age gracefully. Then factor in salary and years of control (Marte = $12m/yr for next 2 years; Nimmo = 3 more years of arbitration eligibility) and this becomes a headscratcher, particularly for a team so worried about finances. I'm not saying Nimmo is untouchable. I'm just saying a fulltime Marte in CF vs Nimmo/Marisnick is probably an upgrade but not one that would make much of an impact, so the Nimmo trade would have to net assets that more than make up the difference.

there was also a biopic with Jeffrey Right from the 1990s.

I am equally undispleased.

i loved Tampopo, but you'll have to go out and eat Ramen right after seeing it.

Gilkey had one of the best seasons in Mets history, then played poorly for 1.5 years after that before going to AZ. Players do sometimes get to play after they've stopped being productive because they were productive at one time. Lagares, however, is an example of a guy who got time even though he was NEVER productive. He had a mediocre season (OPS+102) and won a GG in his 2nd year. He then went on to play parts of 5 more years without even achieving mediocrity. The 2 cases are not analogous. There are few cases analogous to Lagares, who was given a long-term deal because of potential that never developed, yet they kept running him out there.

Lagares never hit; Gilkey did.

the other thing we know is that he'll be the richest owner in baseball, with a stated willingness to spend that money on players. I'll take that over the Ponzi-impoverished Wilpons nickel and diming us in the biggest media market in the world.

Gilkey hit well for the mets.

Double Switch wrote: Would you tell me where those numbers come from? i found a website that ranked all of Kurosawa's films as an aggregate of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. Then i seeded them in each bracket accordingly, with slight tweaks based on my own assessments.

the early bracket would have 7 films: 1- No Regrets For our Youth (46) vs 8- [bYE] 2- Sanshiro Sugata (43) vs 7-Those Who Make Tomorrow (46) 3- Man Who tread on Tiger's Tail (45) vs 6- Sanshiro Sugata, Pt.2 (45) 4- One Wonderful Sunday (47) vs 5- Most Beautiful (44) but as i said, these were studio films that Kurosawa didn't have complete control over, and some were produced during the war; he considers DRUNKEN ANGEL to be the first film that was completely his.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, a poll couldn't handle Kurosawa. He deserves the spectacular head-to-head matchup of an elimination tournament. Kurosawa wrote and directed around 30 films, but 24 of them were after the war and were free of studio interference. He considers Drunken Angel (48) his first real film, so I've broken down the 24 remaining films into 3 brackets (early Mifune, late Mifune, and no Mifune). The highest seed of the bracket winners gets a bye into the finals to face the winner of the other 2 brackets. Here you go: Bracket 1 (Early Mifune) 1- 7 Samurai (54) vs 8- Quiet Duel (49) 2- Rashomon (50) vs 7- Scandal (50) 3- Drunken Angel (48) vs 6- The Idiot (51) 4- Stray Dog (49) vs 5- I Live in Fear (55) Bracket 2 (Late Mifune) 1- Yojimbo (61) vs 8- Lower Depths (57) 2- Throne of Blood (57) vs 7- Red Beard (65) 3- High & Low (63) vs 6- Bad Sleep Well (60) 4- Hidden Fortress (58) vs 5- Sanjuro (62) Bracket 3 (No Mifune): 1- Ikiru (52) vs 8- Rhapsody in August (91) 2- Ran (85) vs 7- Do-Deska-Den (70) 3- Dersu Uzala (75) vs 6- Dreams (90) 4- Kagemusha (80) vs 5- Maadayo (93) 7 samurai would and should win, but Rashomon could give it a bit of a test in Bracket 1. Bracket 2 is the deepest, with samurai lovers choosing between Yojimbo and Sanjuro, classicists going for Throne of Blood (i.e., MacBeth), star wars fans going for Hidden Fortress, and cinephilic appreciation going High & Low. Bracket 3 is surprisingly strong, with critics pick Ikiru going up against the Lear epic, Ran, the Lucas/spielberg fave, Kagemusha. and the Russian dark horse, Dersu Uzala. The chalk says 7 samurai takes a bye, waiting for Yojimbo to beat Ikiru, leading to a battle of Mifune ronin, with the Magnificent 7 defeating Fistful of Dollars in the finale. But, there are always upsets, so anything could happen.

funny, then tragic, and beautiful all the way through. ScarJo's best performance.

best Japanese movies: 1) everything by Kurasawa 2) everything else

just saw it. They could've stopped with 3 and i'd be fine.

I give it two and one-half stars (Felix Millan) **1/2 Its like 5 movies crammed into one. But at least 3 of those movies are pretty good. Still, Marty and Thelma should've considered editing the film. Most directors try to do that.

Double Switch wrote: The reason I ask is that I haven't bothered to watch any new movies (by that I mean pretty much everything made in the 21st century, which is entering its 20th year soon). I'm just not into CGI and explosions as plot devices. I could be called a retrograde movie fan because I would more love to discuss film noir than movies that are bioflicks or remakes of earlier hits. As an example, I would never bother to watch a remake of The Manchurian Candidate or Psycho because the originals were excellent. I see no reason to revisit them as if they were not already perfection. I quit the Star Wars franchise after the third one. That was enough for me. I truly have no idea how many there are now and would need to look that up. And, everyone following this franchise now, in drooling anticipation of the next iteration, likely were not around for the very first of these movies (1977). Please tell me I'm wrong. But - that's just me. Maybe I am alone in my reverence of The Big Sleep and The Philadelphia Story and Dodsworth. And Eraserhead. Surely in a crowd this size, there must be at least one fan besides myself of Eraserhead. At the moment I am about to start watching The Elephant Man, the movie that came after Eraserhead and made David Lynch, if not a household word, at least a blip on the radar of serious movie goers. I used to have a 16mm print of ERASERHEAD and showed it at parties I hosted with my roommate (this was in the 1980s). "In heaven, everything is fine..." I used it, like i used Frank Zappa, to see which girls would like it, so i could ask them out. I watch everything and anything. old, new, borrowed, blue; s'all good.

looks like an ABC after-school special. pass.

OFers: i'd rank them Murphy / Evans / Parker, with none of them clear HOFers, but Murphy had the highest peak and played CF, so if i were to pick one, i'd go Murphy. Catchers: Simmons / Munson, neither are clear HOFers, but maybe Simmons. People think Munson had a higher peak, cut short by tragedy. But his peak wasn't higher (simmons had 5 seasons of 140+ OPS+, Munson had 1), and the career cut short by tragedy ignores the fact that he was already declining. We'd had his best, and it wasn't good enough. 1b: Hernandez / Mattingly / Garvey, with none of them clear HOFers, but maybe Keith. Mattingly clearly had the highest peak, but it was basically 4 seasons, while Keith had a more sustained period of excellence. Garvey doesn't even belong in the conversation. IFer: Whitaker? no. just no. not high enough peak, not enough sustained excellence. Really good, but not a HOFer. His partner squeaked in due to higher peak. Pitchers: John? Only for the iconic surgery. my ballot: Murphy /Simmons / Miller, with a write-in for Keith

was anybody a no show?