Vic Sage

i have no issue with signing a cheater who lied about cheating. There are known cheaters in the HOF... guys know to have threwn illegal pitches, used illegal bats, took illegal drugs (even PEDs like amphetamines), and baseball nodded and winked at that behavior, and still does. And when guys try to fool an ump into thinking a trapped ball is a catch, or a missed swipe is a tag, or lean into an inside pitch to take a HBP when the rules require them to get out of the way... this is called "gamesmanship" and most fans smile and hope that their guy gets away with it. Then `Roids comes along, and congressional hearings, and so suddenly MLB (having profited enormously from the drug use) pulls a Claude Rains/Inspector Renault routine and says "shocked! i'm shocked to learn about gambling in this establishment!" and the Player's Union says "here are your winnings, monsieur inspector," and then they start a witch hunt to distract from their own role as co-conspirators, which continues to this day. The notion that "well, there's cheating and then there's CHEATING!" is a double standard that serves MLB and nobody else. Now I would understand HOF voters considering this behavior if they were doing so with some consistency... how many guys did they exclude from the 60s and 70s who played loaded on greenies (and so the player had the energy to get out there and perform on a day where he might not have gotten out there at all), and did they vote for Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton (among others), and you know that Ty Cobb was a hideous human being even by the standards of his time. But there are no real enforceable criteria, so voters can choose to apply or not apply whatever standards they choose, and so Bonds and Clemens are out; Cobb, Sutton and Perry are in. Whatever, that's fine. But the HOF is a museum and should include all of baseball's history, not just the whitewashed bits. Yes, I understand the gambling thing, since that goes to the credibility of the contest and the survival of the sport, since without the prohibition baseball could have gone the way of professional wrestling as an "exhibition" rather than a sport. And i would also understand not wanting to have a guy convicted as a violent felon on my team's roster; rules of civilization trump MLB rules, and i would have a problem cheering for such a fellow even if his terrible off-field activities had nothing to do with baseball. But i'm sorry... trying to win so much that you look for a competitive edge, and then choosing to lie about it rather than deal with the hypocritical response to your actions from MLB, and the MLBPA and other players, and the public, is simply not in the same hemisphere as being a convicted rapist. Even the behavior of the `86 Mets, based on the Pearlman book, is more objectionable to me than 'roiding and lying about it. So not trading for an MVP in his prime because he took `roids when many in the sport were, and then lied about it in the media, seems misguided to me. If the price is right, Braun can bunk at my house, if no one else will have him. And i might even let him babysit my kids. Doc and Daryl, on the other hand...

my dad was a swimmer; he was a lifeguard in Hawaii while in the service during WWII and, growing up, we lived 3 blocks from the beach. He'd go lay on the sand and swim from Coney to the tip of Sea Gate every weekend. so it was a big part of his life. And for some reason he loved this movie, depressing as it was.

ha...yeah. like they'd do THAT. sure, sign me up!

If the Crane Pool Forum was around 30 years ago, I'm pretty sure many of the people here would be ripping the Home Run Apple -- or was it called Mets Magic Apple back then -- it and calling it an embarrassment. Embarrassment [e] x Time [t] = Beloved symbol of Metdom [~m] e.g., orange and blue shingles, marv throneberry, Mr. Met, Jay Horwitz, Rheingold, Jane Jarvis, and the Mets Magic Apple

Get enough twatters hash tagging about you and you trend ok, we've clearly crossed some kind of line now because i seriously don't know what this sentence means. and, more importantly, i do not want to know.

well, they both suck, but that's only illegal in a few states nowadays.

"twitter on fire" seems like a good idea to me... just sayin'.

it's just money, and it's not mine. if you're as flush as you say, Freddie, then sign him.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Let's just pretend for a second that Ceetar's right and that the Mets are no lamer than any other franchise when it comes to their lack of originality, lack of imagination, lack of conviction and lack of self awareness. How is that OK? oh, It's not. but holding up the Mets as some sort outlier seems silly to me. It's baseball as a whole that's the conservative un-imaginative lump. I think that the whole point is that they're not any sort of outlier. They've aimed square at the middle, in virtually every respect. And the thing is, even if you take into account the cost of failures, it actually behooves them to try different things; their main local competition is the hidebound, traditionalist selling-pinstripes-to-a-pinstripe-crowd folks, and trying new and different and goofy and populist-- along with, y'know, being a Senior Circuit team in a Senior Circuit town-- is how they got their first set of diehard fans. Differentiating yourself from the competition (locally and otherwise) and giving folks an ethos-- however prefab it is in actuality-- gives you insulation from the economic vagaries of stock-market weirdness or "rebuilding years." I mean, hell, leave aside the what-the-Mets-should-do vs. Corporate Entity leitmotif for a second; originality draws attention and eyes, and making your corporate strategy "damage avoidance/limitation" guarantees that when the inevitable embarrassment comes, you'll have no cover. I'll spend time and a little bit of money for old-times' sake. You want the rest? Come get it. Give me-- a baseball-inclined New Yorker-- a reason to spend my money here instead of at the other place, or the Big Apple Circus, or the Met. Give me a Lazy Mary lip-synch contest, or weirdo Mandarin/Korean/Spanish/Hebrew versions for the Cultural Days. Give me a miltary-veteran Wiffle Ball Home Run Derby, or Talent Contest. Give me a "7 Train" bullpen car. Give me an onsite "Piggie's Garden" that fans can visit, and maybe one that provides onsite vendors with fresh, ultralocal produce. Give me Agee, Cleon, Piazza, and Mo Markers in the seats/concourses. Business Entity in The World's Most Diverse Set of Zip Codes-- woo my fucking business. this. and maybe "ball girls" in string bikinis who do lap dances between innings. You know, in tribute to Ozone Park strip clubs.

Don't know, don't care... the might of the US Navy against four starving guys in a row boat, and i'm supposed to cheer for the battleships? Pass.

Gotta admit, not a fan of ARROW. But maybe where he lives there is alot of evil eurotrash who have failed the city.

Personally, I find the orchestrated public displays of "patriotism for profit" not only embarrassing but insulting. That being said, i also find the metro-sexual obsession some fans have over the stylishness (or lack thereof) of our team's uniforms to be almost (but certainly not quite) as tedious. Actually, I think they should bring back those sci-fi uniforms from a few years back. And maybe use those ChiSox softball jerseys once in a while. We should consider reviving the Astros starburst-rainbow pattern, while we're at it, since the Stros seem to have abandoned it. Frankly, I'd love to see a game where the guys play in white-tie-and-tails... that would be elegant. And how about a "naked day"? i bet they could charge a lot for those tickets and show the game on pay-per-view. But they shouldn't let the fans be naked. Have you seen our fans? Eww, gross. The only solution, really, is to have the team's uniform made in the pattern of an orange and blue Rorschach Test, so everybody can see what they want to in it.

they've remade CAPTAIN PHILLIPS already?

It was a pretty decent undercover cop/drug movie from the 90s, with Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh, and the underrated and relatively obscure character actor Max Perlich, who i always like. As for this car-racing thing... no interest whatsoever.

we're going this weekend for my son's 13th birthday party, with some of his friends (i.e., on-line colleagues). Adolescent gamers save the world... sounds like their wet dream. ENDER'S GAME was a great book, and had a great sequel too. But the third one was not so good, and I haven't read any of the subsequent ones (i think there are some). O.S.Card is a brilliant writer and an asshole. i don't blame the one for the other.

you don't need superhero movies for that (see DIE HARD, etal)

Wel, they WILL have Yondu and Star-lord, so they won't ALL be strangers. And Gamora, Nebula, Ronan and Drax should be known to fans of the Infinity Gems saga, and Thanos, and Warlock titles. But it does seem that they've merged the characters of Nebula with Moondragon by having Karen Gillan shave her head for the part. In which case, i'll be well and truly pissed.

in a choice between Davis and Duda, i take Satin, bring up Dykstra to platoon with him, then wait for Dom Smith and/or Jayce Boyd to arrive. Then use the money saved to go towards acquiring an OFer and a SS.

Peralta, Granderson and E.Santana are coming? I could live with that.

Me no likee so muchee. Zero character development, with video-game action. And as i feared, Malekith is an uncharismatic and uninteresting villain. While the ending of the 1st THOR movie was kind of lame, that story was at least about THOR (and it had agent Colson!). This movie, on the other hand, is about some convoluted nonsense about darkness and aether and convergence, and our hero goes through practically no evolution in his character. Portman is basically there to stand around and look pretty while spouting pseudo-science, and i wanted to hit that 2 BROKE GIRLS girl about the head with a steel rod. Speaking of steel rods, the villain is killed and his plot foiled by the scientist's invention, not so much by Thor. In fact, Thor plays a relatively unimportant role in the story's outcome. You could have done this movie with Loki and Jane Forster (and her pants-less scientist pal), with no Thor at all, and told pretty much the same exact story. Favorite scene: Thor walking down the hall with Loki, and Loki screwing with Thor's head just for fun. Actually, my favorite scenes were any ones with Tom Hiddleston. And which of the infinity gems were Thor's pals giving to the Collector for safe-keeping, in the scene after the final credits (which is now a de rigueur Marvel movie cliche at this point)? was it the "aether"? That's not an infinity gem. This scene was included to set up GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and I liked Benecio Del Toro in that cameo. But i like him in practically anything. i have mixed feelings about the GUARDIANS movie, from what i've heard and read so far.

Choo is 31 (will be 32 in July), with a massive platoon differential, and big career home/road splits (with the 2 Ohio teams having hitter-friendly fields). I like Choo, but not at $90m. 4yr/$50m sounds right to me, but he'll get more than that somewhere else, so i'm not holding my breath for him, and i certainly don't want us sinking limited resources (perhaps VERY limited resources) into an excessive long-term contract for him.

yeah, i guess i don't see the problem you're seeing. Slater is believable to me both as the romantic lead and smart-ass tough guy; i found him totally sympathetic. He's had that "Nicholson" thing hung around his neck his whole career, but that's the way he talks and looks. If there hadn't been a Nicholson before him, Slater may have become a major star. Maybe he played into the charicature too much in some roles, but i didn't have that problem with him in this. I can't imagine Jack ever playing this kind of guy, or even wanting to.

We need an OFer, a SS, and a SP. [u:mifcawvn]who i want:[/u:mifcawvn] M.Tanaka - P S.Choo - OF J.Peralta - SS [u:mifcawvn]who we could get:[/u:mifcawvn] B.Arroyo - P C.Granderson - OF S.Drew - SS [u:mifcawvn]who we'll probably end up with, if they even sign anybody:[/u:mifcawvn] D.Matsuzaka - P C.Hart - OF R.Furcal - SS [u:mifcawvn]Or the Mets could go the all-PEDS way, because they might be cheaper:[/u:mifcawvn] B.Colon - P N.Cruz - OF J.Peralta - SS

Cubs do go with Renteria, apparently. so the shuffle is done. now cut.

30 - Harvey 29 - Wright ---- 28 - Byrd 27 - Gee 26 - Murphy 25 - Young 24 - Niese 23 - Lagares 22 - Wheeler 21 - Hefner 20 - Parnell 19 - Hawkins ---- 18 - Torres 17 - Satin 16 - Duda 15 - Rice 14 - Turner 13 - Brown 12 - Recker 11 - Davis 10 - Buck ---- 09 - German 08 - Atchison 07 - Aardsma 06 - Mejia 05 - Black 04 - Matsuzaka 03 - Quintanilla 02 - d'Arnaud 01 - Tejada Players whose negative impact was amplified by too many PAs or IP: pitchers: Lyon, Marcum, Burke players: Baxter, Valdespin The rest were either bad or mediocre, and with too few appearances to be considered significant.