Vic Sage

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/17/report-joel-hanrahan-looked-great-during-his-throwing-session-today/ Should the Mets take a shot at him? Is there a reason NOT to?

If Neiuwy keep this up, does Brown go down when Young comes up? or do they keep both and send down Famiglia or Lannan?

when you're fat and old, bad backs happen. believe me, i know. and they don't go away either.

Crowe has a pretty unique talent for making chick flicks that guys can sit through I like Crowe movies and Broadway musicals... should i be worried? Am i living a lie? NTTAWWT

Edgy MD wrote: My issues weren't technical. They remain, as usual with these thingies, writing that's both incoherent and uninspired. I don't get how this is missed. It's one thing when these films are composed on a storyboard. It's another when they are composed in the editing room. I find myself watching a scene, understanding where they are trying to get to, and re-writing the dialogue in my head as it happens. Technically, these things tend to be brilliant, even when flawed, but all so meaningless. yeah, i have no idea what you're talking about. I get that you don't like superhero movies; you've made that point (sometimes elliptically, but consistently) in many similar threads. And gosh darn it, i'll defend to my death your right to not like them, and to say so. But why "meaningless"? There's plenty of meaning, or at least as much meaning as in any other action film... I'd even go so far as to say sometimes MORE meaning. In this case, we've got a guy, one of the "greatest generation", trying to come to terms with modern post-9/11 America, where presidents kill via drones and we've traded our privacy and freedom for the illusion of security. And wearing a flag on his chest, he decides to bring down the police state into which he thinks our country is descending. Without becoming a political treatise or diatribe, it still offers plenty of fucking meaning for an action film. The plot crosses `70s era political thrillers like 3 DAYS OF THE CONDOR (hence the iconic presence of Redford, to underscore the connection) and PARALLAX VIEW with modern SF like MINORITY REPORT and X-MEN (finding and punishing "criminals" before the crime has been committed) to create a vast conspiracy for the symbol of America to bring down with his mighty shield. The storytelling is far from perfect, with too much plot and too many chases, but there are some meaningful relationships. Steve meets Sam Wilson, a fellow veteran helping his comrades with PTSD, and it gives Rogers' experience more context, and allows him to open up to the first man he felt could understand his situation. Its the beginning of his first real friendship since Bucky "died" 70 years ago. And the Black Widow offers a sisterly surrogate, providing teasing affection as well as a comrade in arms. And Rogers going to see his old love, Peggy Carter, dying of old age and lapsing in and out of memory, adds poignancy to this man out of his time. I think they could've done better and more to mine the rich vein of that character arc -- a soldier with PTSD trying to reconnect to a new world which is in dire contrast to the one he left behind -- but it's there, and they had to get to the shit blowing up, i guess. And alot of the blowing up is repetitive and tedious, but some of the hand-to-hand that Cap engages in (particularly early in the film) really capture the super nature of this hero's fighting skills in a way that the prior 2 films (CAP 1, and AVENGERS) never really did, and is quite thrilling in its own right. I do wish they had done more with the Shield Agent 13 / Sharon Carter; if they were going to use her, they should've made the connection with her Aunt Peg, and set up her future relationship with Steve. Again, its there a bit, but just barely. Yeah, i preferred the first one's retro WWII era style and "origin story" plot, but on the whole this one did just fine as a follow up. Or maybe i just like meaningless movies. could be. particularly if they have ScarJo in red hair and black leather.

Wallowing in depravity for 3 hours didn't entertain me. I have nothing against depravity, mind you... certainly not while i'm indulging in it. I just don't find 3rd-party depravity entertaining. The repetitive, over-the-top farce made me weary; DiCaprio's inspirational monologues were not thrilling (like Baldwin's in GlenGarry) or charming (like Burt Lancaster in Elmer Gantry), or even particularly funny, they were just self-conscious and heavy-handed "this-is-what-these-people-were-about" moments, to underline the themes; and the comeuppance for this collection of despicable cretins was entirely unsatisfying. And by failing to even attempt to explain the massive and institutional criminality of Wall St (then and now), it really lets the whole industry off the hook and chalks it all up to just the excesses of some greedy psychos. But what the movie chose not to do is a separate issue. It's just that what it did choose to do was repulsive and tedious more than it was funny and/or insightful. As for the ongoing DiCaprio/Scorsese collaboration, I have no problem with director/actor relationships. It worked for John Ford and John Wayne, Hitchcock and Stewart, Scorsese and DeNiro, and i even like alot of the Burton/Depp films, to name just 4. But I've never really liked a single Scorsese / DiCaprio movie. Whatever is good in GANGS OF NY is good despite DiCaprio; AVIATOR is just awful; SHUTTER ISLAND is interesting but ultimately disappointing, and DEPARTED is OK, thanks to Nicholson, but not up to Scorsese's other gangland movies. I just don't think DiCaprio's boyishness enhances Scorsese's brutal, dark POV, and vice versa.

my original ALMOST FAMOUS/Cameron Crowe essay, for the sake of posterity. Little did i know that ALMOST FAMOUS would be his last good film... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EATING CROWE A Review of Cameron Crowe�s ALMOST FAMOUS an his career to date By [Vic Sage] February, 2001 Oscar nominations came out recently and guess who didn�t get a best picture nod? Only the best picture of the year, ALMOST FAMOUS, written and directed by Cameron Crowe, who was similarly un-nominated for his direction. �So what?� you may ask. The history of the Academy provides a veritable �Who�s Who� of overlooked talent. Nothing new there. It does provide an excuse, however, to re-examine one of the most neglected great movies, and great moviemakers, of recent years. If you look closely, you can see the arc of Cameron Crowe�s films as they mirror his own journey from precocious adolescent (FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, SAY ANYTHING, SINGLES) to successful professional (JERRY MAGUIRE), with music always marking the trail he has taken. Now a successful 40-something, Crowe does what we all do at that stage. He looks backwards, with longing. And so, in ALMOST FAMOUS, he offers us a loving reflection on his youth and the music that lit the way. With this picture, Crowe does the impossible� he makes us nostalgic for the 70s. Somehow, thanks to Crowe, the era has taken on that burnished glow that only memory can endow. For this he should be damned and praised. Crowe starts his film with credits... not an unusual technique. Except these credits are being written in pencil on a yellow note pad by a disembodied hand. The hand writes out each name, even misspelling �Frances McDormand� then erasing the error and fixing it. The credits have not even finished and I already love this movie. This in not some generic, Hollywood story, measured and sliced with a cookie-cutter called �market research.� This is a personal story being told by somebody. And a young somebody, to boot� inexperienced, but gamely writing as fast as he can, fixing his mistakes along the way. If the credits are this good, what will the movie be like, I wonder. Crowe was a writer for Rolling Stone magazine in the 70s, before his FAST TIMES adventure. I didn�t read Rolling Stone then, other than the occasional Hunter S. Thompson article, because Rolling Stone stopped being cool because music stopped being cool (disco... yikes!). But Crowe was a teenager who wrote rock criticism for them, and it is that period of his life that provides the basis for the movie�s plot. Cast as the young Crowe is Patrick Fugit, an unknown kid with a couple of episodes of TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL under his belt. He is Crowe as a decent, nerdy, talented boy (William), who is barely surviving his loving, overbearing mother. As the mom, [crossout]Francis[/crossout], um, Frances McDormand is simultaneously unnerving and endearing in her Oscar-nominated performance. William�s loving but irritating big sister (a typically odd Zooey Deschanel) clashes with mom, and sis takes off with her boyfriend to become a stewardess. But, in an effort to save him from mom�s influence, sis leaves behind her record collection. That pile of vinyl opens up a whole new universe for William. He is an �un-cool� high school kid, isolated and in pain, father-less, sister-less� but Rock n Roll becomes his world and his salvation. William becomes a writer, precociously penning music criticism for local papers. He is befriended by the burned-out editor of Creem Magazine, Lester Bangs, brilliantly played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman has been a ubiquitous presence in films since BOOGIE NIGHTS and his dual/dueling Broadway performances in the recent revival of Sam Shepard�s TRUE WEST was an electrifying experience. Now he creates a curmudgeonly mentor for William, a sort of ghost of Christmas-yet-to-be, ranting that �Rock is dead� and providing other such heartening insights, while also giving him a willing ear and an encouraging word. Though based on an actual figure, Hoffman�s Les Bangs is an original film creation� a Rock prophet-guru-nerd who, seeing his end in sight as he slouches toward Bethlehem, can�t help but try to pass the torch. William is offered the chance to cover a touring band on the rise (the group is a bit preciously named �Stillwater�) for Rolling Stone magazine by an unsuspecting editor that doesn�t know the kid is only 15. William joins the tour while his worried mother screams to anyone who�ll listen that �musicians have kidnapped my son!� She has only let him go because she knows how much he needs this adventure, yet she is deathly afraid of losing her last child. Upon boarding the tour bus (bearing a sign: �the ALMOST FAMOUS Tour�), young William/Cameron journeys like Dante into the inferno. He is doggedly pursued by worried messages from mom (�Don�t take drugs!�) and accompanied only by his yellow note pad, his long-distance calls to mentor Bangs, and the �Stillwater� family that teaches him about who he is and who he can become. Still waters run deep, indeed. One of his Virgils is the band�s enigmatic guitarist, Russell, brought to vivid life in actor Billy Crudup�s breakthrough performance as the Rock n Roll hero with feet of clay. The other is the siren Penny Lane, the beautiful free spirit who, as a �band-aid�, acts as both muse and sex toy for Crudup. She is ephemeral and damaged, leading other girls into a romanticized life of self-delusion, living in devotion to the music but not the musicians they service (or so they claim). Of course, the Russell-Kate-William triangle is an eternal one, resulting in pain and growth for all concerned. Kate Hudson�s Penny Lane is a magical character, and it�s a star-making performance, worthy of her Oscar. But the key, supporting player in Crowe�s tale is the music. There is a moment in the movie when everyone is on the bus, and it has been a long, bad night. Emotions are frayed. The mood is fragile. Elton John�s song �Tiny Dancer� is heard and, one at a time, everyone starts to sing along. Music heals. Families can injure, but they can heal, too. Like his earlier films, music is the heart and soul of this film, both in the dramatic moments and concert scenes, dramatizing the effect on both the players and the audience as together they create, for a moment, a surrogate family for all who need one. It seems at first a small story to build a movie on. Nothing blows up. The sex is mostly off-screen. Like all of Crowe�s other pictures, ALMOST FAMOUS is a character study in the coming-of-age genre. But, when seen through the context of his career to date, you realize it�s about Crowe coming of age, as much as the characters in the film. When you look back at his movies, first you find FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. Like ANIMAL HOUSE a few years earlier, FAST TIMES was a touchstone for a generation. Aside from talented young actors who got their starts in that film (Forest Whitaker, Nicolas Cage, Anthony Edwards, Judge Reinhold and Eric Stoltz), it featured Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh (80s icons of teen lust), and Sean Penn�s star-making turn as the stoner-surfer dude, Spicoli. It was one of the first honest movies I�d ever seen about high school life. Being raised on Godard, Andrew Sarris and the auteur theory, I initially credited first time director Amy Heckerling for the film�s wonders. Time has not borne out that gross conclusion, as her career has included JOHNNY DANGEROUSLY, EUROPEAN VACATION, LOOK WHO�S TALKING (One and TOO), and the aptly titled LOSER. Little attention was paid to the fact that someone actually wrote the movie (not only wrote it, but based it on his own book). A kid named Cameron Crowe (�was that his REAL name?�) went under cover in a Southern California high school, wrote a book about what he observed, then adapted it as a screenplay. The movie based on this piece of gonzo journalism/screenwriting still provides insight into both the period of the late 70s-early 80s in America and the eternal period of adolescence. Then, Crowe went behind the camera to create a series of excellent movies as both writer and director. SAY ANYTHING, with Jon Cusack, is a tragi-comic tale of young love that has taken on a passionate cult following. When asked by the girl�s father what he wants to do for a living, with a nod to THE GRADUATE, Cusack says: �I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.� After FAST TIMES at High School, SAY ANYTHING said everything about that scary time right after graduation. Crowe�s next picture, SINGLES, talked about relationships amongst 20-somethings, during and after college, in the era of Seattle grunge garage bands. It�s a flawed movie, but he got one of the very few great Matt Dillon performances ever recorded on film, showing once again his great skill in directing actors. The use of music in FAST TIMES, SAY ANYTHING and SINGLES is integral to the characters, not just an excuse to release a soundtrack album. When Cusack stands outside his girl�s apartment in SAY ANYTHING, he holds a boom box over his head blasting Peter Gabriel while standing in the rain. Using music to communicate from his soul, Crowe creates one of the most moving, romantic moments from any movie in the last 20 years. Writer-director-producer Crowe then created JERRY MAGUIRE, his first breakout-commercial Hollywood mega-hit. Despite that reputation, the movie is really about a young urban professional guy finding some personal commitment and professional redemption (or was that professional commitment and personal redemption? It works either way). It�s actually a small, personal film at heart. Except, you know, with Tom Cruise. And once again he launched starry careers, providing great showcases for Renee Zellweger and Cuba Gooding, Jr. As a filmmaker, Crowe is unlike such contemporaries as writer-director Kevin Smith, who tells us true and interesting things about our popular subcultures, but in a cinematically clumsy way; or the Coen brothers, who say nothing but with a delightful visual style; or Spike Lee, who is wildly inconsistent and political, rather than personal. Crowe is a both a writer and a director, both literary and visual, and he makes movies about himself and about human relationships. Unlike film-school filmmakers, he doesn�t make films about films. He makes movies about life. And so, he tells stories about us. They are stories worth telling and he tells them wonderfully well. Too bad those Oscar nominators missed that fact, as they rushed headlong over a cliff to recognize such stereotypical Hollywood fodder as TRAFFIC (wow, there�s a drug problem in America! Who knew?), ERIN BROCKOVICH (big screen episode of THE PRACTICE), GLADIATOR (beautiful, stupid and hollow), and CHOCOLAT (Miramax marketing overcomes a slight truffle of a film). HIDDEN DRAGON, of course, is a marvel, certainly worthy of consideration, but Crowe got only a screenplay nod and supporting actress nominations for McDormand and Hudson. And so, Crowe remains our stealth genius. ALMOST FAMOUS, indeed. Like all of Crowe�s other films, ALMOST FAMOUS is a tale both personal and universal. It made me reconsider the era I grew up in, and the person I was then and am today� goddamn it. That�s the power of a great storyteller and, make no mistake, Crowe is perhaps the foremost auteur of his generation. But it looks like it may be up to future generations to realize it.

Fie on you, sir! Fie, i say! I can re-post my Crowe essay if its been lost.

i gave it a 7. I agree the first one was better, but i would've given that one a 9. I'm sorry, but if your going to have Scarlett Johansson kicking ass in a black leather jump suit, with red hair and her sly, knowing smile, then i'm your willing slave... do with me what you will.

Now, many have speculated that Sandy Alderson didn't have the authority to engage in those negotiations. And that may be true, but we have no way of knowing that. And I don't think any reporter can make that assumption, so this criticism of Alderson is warranted and fair. He is, after all, the GM. And in the absence of other proof, this responsibility lies with him. As CF knows, as a fellow barrister, there is a doctrine in the law called Res Ipsa Loquitor... the thing speaks for itself (23 years after law school, it's probably the only thing i still remember). Speaking of which... if a franchise owner loses his fortune in a pyramid scheme, going into hock to hold onto the team, selling off chunks of it and mortgaging its other assets just to maintain cash flow, making deals with banks to cap expenditures, and if that team's payroll has concurrently dwindled to mid-market proportions, and the owners bring in a guy whose famous for making teams competitive on a small budget, then yeah, i think the thing speaks for itself, with regard to how much leeway Alderson has in making ANY decisions that increase payroll (i.e., virtually none). Particularly at the time of the Reyes situation, when the `Pons were still under the cloud of a lawsuit of potentially cataclysmic proportions. So Sandy gets a pass from me until its clear that the team is either sold or starts demonstrating a willingness to use the resources that should be available to a team in the biggest market in America. Is he beyond criticism? Of course not, but that's a far cry from implying (as Rubin does) that Sandy should be on the hot seat, because "smart people" know whose fault this really is. Sandy is obviously a smart guy with a track record of success who has already made this team better and has given this franchise more long term hope than it had when he showed up. NYMR83: Adam Rubin needs to shut up, 4 years isnt enough time to turn around a trainwreck of a minor league system... anyone he drafted is only first hitting the upper levels of the minors now! I havent seen any other GMs go out and acquire Zach Wheeler, Noah Syndergaard and Travis d'Arnaud for a 36 year old pitcher who just had his career year and a 3-month Beltran rental. Alderson is doing a great job. Fire Rubin. and fuck the traditional media and their sense of entitlement. if "Mom's Basement Press Association" is actually writing quality stories then they are just as deserving of a seat at the press table as he is. In all the years we've all been here (or its predecessor boards), I don't think I've ever written this word regarding a post from NYMR83, but here it is: "ditto".

So we shouldn't have an opinion about his earlier career, and his relative status among his peers as a result of that work, for fear of his taking it too much to heart and thus becoming a mediocre sellout resting on his laurels? And that if we do make such an assessment, we've somehow encouraged his bad choices? I think we're entitled to "label" him (i.e., have an opinion about him) however we want without bearing an iota of responsibility for his choices or their consequences. That's completely and entirely on him.

For 30 years, DeNiro was one of the best actors of his generation and a movie icon. But his career took a turn, I think, after RONIN, an excellent caper/thriller by John Frankenheimer that completely flopped in 1998; he followed it with the utterly mediocre ANALYZE THIS (99) and MEET THE PARENTS (00), which were both huge hits in which he parodied aspects of his psycho-tough guy screen persona. And with only a few exceptions in the 14 years since, his work has been pedestrian commercial crap showing little ambition beyond cashing his check. His recent work with David O. Russell (SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, and his cameo in AMERICAN HUSTLE) have been more interesting, but may only constitute a blip, not a trend in a better direction. We'll see, i guess.

I hope Terry isn't already locked into a "Valverde for the eighth, Parnell for the ninth" mindset. Un-necessary losses lie in that direction. i think he's been locked into that mindset since they sent Black down. Terry is nothing if not a follower of unwritten rules. Has he ever given us any indication that he would use his bullpen creatively, like instead of having pre-designated innings for certain relievers, just putting his best pitchers into the highest leverage situations? If so, i haven't seen it.

If Collins was willing to give Justin Turner innings at SS (18g, 115inn last year), who is no more a SS than i am, why wouldn't he give it to EY, an athletic 2bman, if he needs to? And why shouldn't he see what that looks like before heading north?

Frayed Knot wrote: I was rushed for time and didn't want to type out: 'Totally Fucking Worse to the point where they barely represent the same species'. Pujols pre (5 years) FA deal = .324/.423/.602 // 1025 -- 620 ABs/Yr Pujols post (2 years) FA deal = .275/.338/.485 // 823 -- 499 ABs/Yr ARod pre (5 years) FA deal = .302/.401/.578 // 979 -- 594 ABs/Yr ARod post (6 Years) FA deal = .279/.369/.448 // 817 -- 411 ABs/Yr Yes, but if you look at Pujols' last year with St.L, you can see his decline already starting. He hit under .300, and with less than 100rbi, both for the first time in his career. It was still an excellent season for a mortal, with an OPS+ of 148, but that was also the lowest OPS+ he'd ever put up. At age 31, it was not hard to think the arrow may have begun to point down; certainly St.L was smart enough to realize it and they were unwilling to give him stupid long-term money even though he may have been their best player since Stan Musial, and could've been a similarly iconic lifer for the franchise. But that is why they are a consistently successful franchise; they looked at that and said no, Al, if you want a 10-year deal, go to Anaheim. And now he's the Angels' AL-batross.

wow, way to respond to an argument that was not being made here. EY was given some time at SS. The move was criticized because of EY's poor OB% not making him worth investing ABs in even, presumably, at a position where we are in dire need of options. I objected, saying you can't just look at OB% to determine his value. And you start talking about EY's SLG%, and why Lagares's potential makes him a better OF option, and that Murphy's SB% is better than EY. Nonsequitor fruitbasket obama whatthefuck? Yes, we all know you have a hard-on about an EY. His existence perturbs you somehow. Consider your agenda advanced. Can we return now to the subject of EY getting a surprising opportunity at SS, and why OB% may not tell the whole picture of his (or any player's) value?

amazing. is it just arrogance? stupidity? or is there some financial modeling going on that shows the short-term gain (which is speculative) is worth the long-term deficit (which is definite) of these deals? Here, there isn't even short-term gain, since they had Miggy signed for 2 more years already. There must be some BB economist out there who can explain to us why the successful businessmen who own teams continue to make such decisions despite them NEVER working out. I mean, nobody is SHOCKED by the Pujols situation, are they? Certainly the Cards aren't. He was already starting to plateau and decline when he signed the Angels deal; it was just that he was declining from such a height that he was still excellent. But his trajectory was already defined. How do you sign a guy like that to a 10-year deal at that price? or this guy, who is even less the athletic specimen than Pujols is.

while i agree with the basic premise (that the Mets payroll is not consistent with a team playing in the largest media market, that owns a regional sports network and a new stadium, and is largely due to their continuing sketchy solvency post-Madoff *), there is so much that is stupid here. The Wilpons don't have a fiduciary obligation to "spend"; their obligation is to do their best to field a team that has a chance to win. We have seen too many examples of teams that have spent and failed (including here), and teams that have kept budgets down and won. So spending is a means, a tool, not an end in and of itself. And the notion that buying mediocre players like Loney and Drew would have been the difference between the Mets being a championship-caliber team this year and not, or even that such signings would have won back their fans, is just laughable. As is the notion that they can't "win the back pages in NY without spending." You win the back page by winning. And winning the back page should not be the goal; it's a side effect. And you don't usually win by overpaying mediocrities; you win by having more talent on your roster, in its prime, than the other teams... and you use whatever resources you have to acquire such talent [draft picks, prospects, international scouting, FAs, trades]. The smarter you are about allocating those resources, the longer you can keep your roster filled with that talent. While i trust Sandy to allocate the resources, i don't think he has as much at his disposal as he should, and i blame that directly on Freddie and his borderline dealings with suspect investments which have drained the team of revenues it would otherwise have had. * a franchise that is valued in the top 10, with a payroll in the bottom 10, is the very definition of this problem

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Well, it stands to reason, no? Any time you can find at-bats for a guy who can get on, like, thirty percent of the time, well, you've got to give him those at-bats. well, its not quite that simple now, is it? I'm as SABR-philic as the next guy, but it seems to me a guy that gets on 30% of the time, but then can put himself quickly and consistently in scoring position (because he, you know, leads the league in SBs, and does so at a high rate), may be better option than a guy who gets on 35% of the time and then stands there on 1b, requiring more than one hit to score (unless its a HR, which this team hasn't, and isn't going to, hit that many of). Yes, OB% is important, probably the MOST important, offensive indicator, but it isn't the ONLY indicator, and shouldn't be considered in isolation.

This looks like the likely regular lineup going into the season, with E. Young getting some starts too (more or less, depending how C. Young and Lagares do). But instead of flip-flopping Davis and Granderson, how about they just sit Ike against LH pitching until he shows he can, you know, hit. The could play Satin; he hits LH better, even when Ike is going good. I'd even prefer to see Satin lead off -- certainly over C.Young (or Lagares); at least Josh gets on. And Gee hitting 8th only makes sense if the 9th hitter is somebody who gets on for the top of the order. I don't see the point of flipping him with Tejada unless our SS starts showing he can hit. In which case, he makes a better leadoff option than C.Young/Lagares, so you still wouldn't hit him 9th.

i don't know about that. I think that Mejia is either the 5th starter or they start him in AAA. They seem to be committed to him as a starter at this point. I doubt that, due to his injury history, they'll want to bounce him back and forth from the rotation to the pen.

10 BBs in 9 IP... yikes! But I can't say I'm terribly surprised. What did we expect for a month of Marlon Byrd and John Buck... Goose Gossage? There's a reason he couldn't stick on a mediocre Bucs staff. He's got good stuff, but lets see if he can turn it into some kind of consistent production before we crown him closer-in-waiting. Meanwhile, the 7th spot go to German i assume? He hasn't been great either. Parnell Valverde Familia Rice (L) Torres Lannan (L) German

TheOldMole wrote: The rap on Flores isn't that he's prone to making a lot of stupid plays, it's that he doesn't have the range for shortstop. So what does that mean? That he fails to get to one hit per game that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a lot. That he fails to get to one hit every three games that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a trade-off you might make for a guy who hits forty points higher than the guy with range. As Edgy also said, this i think is the crux of the matter. If, in fact, Flores' defensive problems are primarily about range (and that's how its been reported), then it comes down to how many more hits (mostly singles) he gives up as a result of his limited range compared to how many more hits and walks he gets (including more XBH) than the other options the Mets have at SS, or even what the average SS may get. I'm OK with Flores starting the season at AAA to work on his SS skills, but if he continues his growth as a hitter and can limit his defensive shortcomings to be primarily about range (able to make all the right plays on the balls he can get to), then i'd be happy to try and make him work as our SS, because i have absolutely no interest in watching Tejada play anymore.

Wow, it was eight years ago. I'm sorry i missed out on that thread. I must've been, you know, working that day. What are the odds? Ah, Bret. What a piece of work was that man! How ignoble his reasons! How did he become a member of a faculty? His form of discourse, bowel-moving; his expressions less than admirable! In action how like a demon, in comprehension how like a cod! The beauty of the world eluded him! With a pair of gonads like a bull! And yet by me what of his quintessence could be sussed? Man delights not me, nor Woman neither; But he left me smiling, so I always let it go. I miss him. No, really.

I think we've seen Gee's upside. If Sandy thinks Gregorious has a higher ceiling, then make the deal. It's not about 2014. With Harvey coming back eventually, and Montero, Syndergaard, Matz, etal, in the pipeline, we'll get by without Gee in the long run, regardless of the question marks in 2014. As for me, Gregorious doesn't excite me much and I still think we should be giving Flores a full shot at SS coming out of ST.