Vic Sage

you do realize that Ike has hit really well for about a month now, right? with an OPS around 1.000. I mean, i'm as down on him as the next guy, but give the fella his due.

he comes back on 9/11 in tribute to the remembrance. cuz that's the kind of dude he is, by gosh.

i thought the GCL and APP leagues were equivalent rookie-type A-ball leagues, no? So is that really a promotion, or a sideways thing to just get another bat in for their post-season? Either way, good for him. Looking at Smith's numbers this year at GCL, it looks like he's exactly the kind of line-driver with a good eye that we were told. Hopefully, he'll develop some power as he gets older. Most good hitters do, and he's only 18 so there's plenty of time. But it wouldn't be terrible either if he were just a .300/15hr gold glove-caliber 1bman, like the guy sitting in the broadcast booth.

i remember Leary's first start like it was yesterday. I was a junior in college, sitting in the end-hall lounge eating lunch and listening to the game on a transistor radio. Over his first 2 innings, he Kd 3 guys, with no hits, 1 walk. He was our great hope, a new phenom to lead us out of the darkness of the late 70s, the M.Grant years, into a new era. And then it was over. just like that. over. And it forever changed the way i view "prospects", ultimately leading to the formation of the TiTTS.

how can you not root for a guy named Vic?

Farmer Ted wrote: Dilson may have been the Pirates 19th-rated prospect, but with the various machinations of scouting that Sandy and crew have, there was definitely something they liked on this guy as opposed to others that were considered higher on the charts. And what exactly would the Mets have gotten in return if Byrd was traded a month ago? There were no Wheelers to be had like the Beltran trade. Yeah, he's having a good year, but it's Marlon Byrd for crissakes. They weren't getting Gerrit Cole. there were quotes from Mets brass back in July about how all they could get is a team's 10-15th best prospect at that time, and that it was insufficient. So, instead, we got a team's 19th best prospect a month later. What changed? fewer teams still in it, 30 more days of the season gone, and restrictions on who they could bargain with. Does that seem to you a recipe for a BETTER deal or a worse one? I'm not saying Sandy would or should have gotten a team's best prospect for Byrd/Buck, or even a top 10 prospect; it's just about maximizing assets at this point. And if i trusted our ownership to keep their financial issues out of these things, and it was purely a baseball decision, then fine. But i do not trust them to have done so, which is why there are questions for me if we really maximized our assets, or if we undermined that because the owners thought they could sell a few more tickets in August by holding on to Byrd as long as they could. Can we know? of course not. But this is the kind of mistrust and uncertainty bred by this ownership group.

Not only do i want them to fall short of the playoffs, I hope the architect of their Nurembergian stadium, Howard Roark, decides that the Yankees are unworthy of his edifice and blows it to kingdom come on the night that 2 other teams are playing in the WS. The Yanks should then have to play their next few seasons at their A-ball park in Staten Island.

Even that isn't a negative for Sandy, unless he is driving that bus.

i think its a good trade regardless, just on the chance that those players can develop. All i'm saying is was this the best possible trade? you're right; who knows? I do think it's at least a question.

Fman99 wrote: Nicely done... Don't you mean "niesely done"? And i concur on Legares; taking away those dunkers stops big innings from happening, and there are a heckuva lot more of those than missed drives to the track. He has the speed and instincts to get most stuff over his head; if a guy really crushes one in the opposite alley that he can't reach, it's both rare and the pitcher's fault. He's still going to have to hit either harder or more often (or take a fucking walk once in a while) to be a good major league player, but you can't fault his defense. And even with this makeshift AAA lineup, Duda still can't get any ABs? Does Davis have nude shots of Terry's wife or something?

Zvon wrote: The talk or reacquiring him next season is interesting. But if Harveys out all next season I don't see the point of trying to squeeze another year out of Byrd. This Harvey business really does change everything. Well, almost everything. Byrd still looks very squeezable. He'll be able to squeeze a multi-year deal out of his career season (maybe 2-3 years ,$3-5m/yr), and I just hope it's not with the Mets. Let another team overpay him the next few years for THIS year's production. But I do wish him well in all his future endeavors.

bmfc1 wrote: This was EXACTLY the type of trade that Sandy needed to make, trading two players that won't help them win the pennant this year and won't be on the team next year for one of the Pirates best prospects. Maybe Dilson won't amount to anything but he has good numbers (that little body produces that much power?) and is a good addition for the Mets. He just needed to make the move a month ago, when there may have been more options. And i read that Dilson was ranked as Pitt's 19th best prospect; i don't consider that one of their "best prospects". Lets not romanticize him before he even shows up. But at any rate, i saw Sandy after last night's game saying this was a better package than he had been offered by anybody in July. Now I don't necessarily believe him; what's he going to say? "well, i was offered more before but i wasn't authorized to pull the trigger until now."? He'd be out the door before the last syllable hit the floor. but if its true, than fine, good. He picked us quite a Dilly!

gave us a career year, garnered us a mid-level prospect. S'long, Marlon, and thanks for all the fish (marlin?)

Not that i begrudge them anything they can get out of Byrd and Buck, but does it really seem likely to anybody ... ANYBODY... that the Mets got more in this deal than they could have gotten a month ago, when they weren't under the same restrictions in terms of who they could deal with? I mean, i suppose it's possible they got no decent offers in July, but did they really think they'd get better ones now, when players have to get thru waivers? my feeling is that Sandy was under orders not to start selling off parts until the last possible second, so they could still sell tickets and the idea that they were still trying to be competitive. Now, a month later, Harvey's injury torpedoes the silly illusion and we're stuck with scraps. Of course, i could be wrong. this might have been the best they could've gotten at any point. we'll never know, i guess, unless Sandy writes a tell-all book one day. Even then, we'll only have his side of it.

Not "real"? Grimm, you of all people!

But the Mets are real. Batman isn't. just because Batman is fictional doesn't mean he's not real. The stories are real. the books are real. the movies are real. The writers are real. The artists are real. The readers are real. And if the next film tanks, and it takes 20 years to make another, then watching the recent ones over and over will be cold comfort. I will want new stories. new real stories. And if Affleck's presence reduces the chances of that, and it may, then fans are rightfully pissed. And as far as realness, the only difference between Batman and the Mets is that the gods guiding Batman's destiny aren't as perversely sadistic. The other difference is that, as between Batman and the Mets, only one has a good relationship with bats.

Vic Sage wrote: i think he'll win the RF job outright, hitting .280 with minimal power. I think i get credit for 2 out of 3. And, according to Meatloaf, 2 Out of 3 Ain't Bad..

The problems with BATMAN & ROBIN didn't include Clooney. Bruce Wayne has to be a sophisticated, urbane, aristrocratic charmer, to the manor borne, with an air of arrogance and disinterest in the world, with a hint if madness behind his eyes. Once they put on the suit, its only a matter of voice-acting and silent movie star eyes. Clooney had much of this; Affleck has none of this. Christian Bale was perfect, Clooney a bit old but not inappropriate (though a better Wayne than Batman), Adam West's Wayne was too nice but in the right direction, and his square-jawed unneurotic Batman was right for his time. While Keaton lacked the sohistication of Bruce, he captured the crazed intensity of the Bat, but Kilmer was just not up to it at all. Affleck, however, seems like a joke in this part, with his Boston Southie working-class persona offering absolutely none of the characteristics of either Wayne or the Dark Knight. He seems more likely to make us long for the days of Val Kilmer than to live up to the current standard of Bale. With him already having shat a turd as DD, i cringe to think of the hash he'll make of the caped crusader. maybe they can bring Shumacher back to direct it, so at least it will be epically awful, instead of just tedious and wrong-headed. And Zvon, "it's just a movie... relax"? Yeah, the Mets are just a sports team, too. Why would you waste your time bitching about sports? Its just, you know, sports. Why are here at all? Look, Batman is a character in our popular culture for almost 75 years, existing in every medium known, then and now. He is part of our modern mythos, and people have become emotionally invested in this character; it matters to them what happens to him. They freaked out when Keaton was cast and were pleasantly surprised he didn't suck. But all they had to measure him against was the satirical version of Adam West 20 years earlier. And then Keaton's film relaunched the franchise (and comicbook movies as a genre). Now, though, Affleck stands in the shadow of the bat, Christian Bale, and a series of successful well-regarded comic book adaptations of all different kinds, so the potential of going back to the Shumacher-era Batman films seems seriously depressing for those who give a shit about such things.

no he doesn't walk much at all.

Who cares what Mr. Kotter thinks about 'Roids?

Ike is also on the short list of "bye bye babies" Interesting that there seems no real consensus about Quintanilla, Recker and Turner. It's hard to say about bench guys, i guess.

Yeah, its kind of unfair to Recker, who has done a credible job in the difficult position of backup catcher. Meanwhile, it wouldn't kill the kid to spend 2 more weeks in AAA. Although, with his injury history, maybe it would.

But did he live in a van down by the river?

Then they might as well play to those of us who were. why pick a 3rd rater when the first 1st tier baddies are still available?

Beyond those who do or don't "give up the game", or just pay a lot less attention (and money) to it, it is unknowable how many kids don't ever really invest themselves as fans of the game because of its laborious pacing, but it seems logical that it happens, and more now than ever. talking about current ratings is short term thinking. for example: At some point toward the end of the 19th century, there probably were a number of buggy whip manufacturers. As cars started getting made, some of those companies died out due to lesser demand for buggy whips, but the remaining companies probably did better than ever due to less competition. At some point, there was one company with a monopoly on the market, and it was doing great. Until the industry became entirely obsolete and disappeared into the dustbin of history. Just because the sport is doing well now by some commercial indices doesn't mean MLB is doing a good job of seeding the ground to provide for the game's future relevance, much less its growth. There is always going to be a different pace to baseball than there is to football or basketball. Its a pastoral 19th century game and that's a large part of its appeal. I wouldn't advocate trying to MTV-ize the sport so that our ADD-addled youth will find it more appealing, but there is much to be done to combat its excesses and make the sport at least more tolerable for kids to attend with their parents so that going to games becomes a family ritual they can then pass on to their own kids.