Vic Sage

Edgy MD wrote: I don't get it. Is Brandon Lyon really trash? I'm lost. The Mets are ripped for not spending money, but ripped also when they spend a little. Brandon Lyon makes them a target for getting a crappy player, but also because they intend to spend a few dimes when they shouldn't be spending any. And he's not crappy. I agree that Lyon isn't crappy. sometimes. sometimes he is. But i don't think its too hard to understand the view that whatever remaining money the Mets have (if any) should not be spent on spare parts for the pen because (a) its one area where we have a bunch of strong young arms to fill those slots, and ( relief pitchers are an extremely unpredictable commodity, given the small sample sizes that there seasons consist of and the greater rate of injury pitchers have over hitters. If the're going to spend more money (and i hope they do), they would be better off getting an OFer, since (a) they need them more and have fewer in-house options, and ( they are more likely to get a more predictable bang for their buck. In other words, if they had $4m burning a hole in their pocket, I'd just as soon they had spent it on Hairston's 400ab/20hr RHed bat/decent glove than on Valverde or Lyon's questionable arms as setup-men/backup closers.

i don't think i've done a filmography on Burton. Hmm.... ok here it is: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19045

he'll be cheaper than Valverde, and it think he's comparable. But in either case, it's stupid.

answer to an SAT question: Burton --> Narrative as a) Hippopotamus --> Ballet the movie's alright. Both NIGHTMARE BEFORE XMAS and CORPSE BRIDE were better, and i didn't love those either.

Released so far in 2013: January: Texas Chainsaw 3D A Haunted House Gangster Squad The Baytown Outlaws The Last Stand Broken City Mama Parker Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters Movie 43 February: Warm Bodies Stand Up Guys Bullet to the Head

$4m? Spending significant money on closers is dumb (particularly for a team that is not particularly close to the playoffs). Rinse. Repeat. If you don't like Francisco, give Parnell and Edgin and Mejia closing opportunities. Spend it on the OF, Sandy!

a corner IFer who couldn't hit a lick in the low minors. Wow, what a find.

What does the bullpen look like as we approach ST? CL: Frank Francisco CL2/setup: Bobby Parnell setup: Greg Burke / Jenry Mejia situational RH: Elvin Ramirez/ Jeurys Famiglia / Burke / Mejia situational LH: Josh Edgin LH2: Robert Carson spot starter/long reliever: Colin McHugh/ Jeremy Hefner / Famiglia / Mejia non-roster invites: Scott Atchison Carlos Torres Scott Rice Tim Byrdak/L (dl) LaTroy Hawkins/L Pedro Feliciano/L Aaron Laffey/L FAs: J.Rauch R.Ramirez Some other FAs still available: Brian Wilson J.Valverde F.Rod B.Jenks B.Lyon

BATTLESHIP? Really? Can you explain? I'm not trying to be all judgy; I just don't understand.

[u:280tabs6]current top 10:[/u:280tabs6] LIFE OF PI ARGO LINCOLN THE AVENGERS DJANGO UNCHAINED THE DARK KNIGHT RISES BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD LOOPER JOHN CARTER SKYFALL [u:280tabs6]borderline:[/u:280tabs6] THE CABIN IN THE WOODS THE GREY THE HUNGER GAMES LES MISERABLES TED HOBBIT BRAVE SPIDER-MAN [u:280tabs6]still want to see:[/u:280tabs6] -SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK -MOONRISE KINGDOM -ZERO DARK THIRTY -THE MASTER -RUBY SPARKS -SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED -FLIGHT -SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN -WRECK-IT RALPH But you couldn't make me watch AMOUR if you put a gun to my head.

BEASTS is a slice of southern-fried magical realism... almost a fairy tale, really, about a make-believe place facing a mystical storm, told from a child's eye view. The problem isn't that the film's plot is "non-linear", its that the plot is so thin, unfocused, meandering and scattershot that it's difficult to engage with it. Instead, the film relies on imagery and symbolism to shoulder the load... and what a load it is. But while it's no PAN'S LABYRINTH or WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (though its evocative of both), the film is still quite beautiful and poetic, and the performances of the child "hushpuppy" and her father, Wink (both amateur actors) carry the day. His efforts to make her strong enough to survive alone after he dies, and her fierce determination to love him despite his abusive behavior, and their profound connection to the swampy wasteland they call home, all combined to move me in the end, despite myself. Toward the end, *** SPOILER ALERT *** the ancient aurochs (giant prehistoric wild boars) that had escaped the melting ice caps and had been making their way south throughout the story, finally arrive to confront the community. Hushpuppy calmly stares the head auroch down, remarking that she thinks he is kind of her friend (they are both beasts of a nearly extinct species), but she has to �take care of her own." The aurochs turn and walk away. Hushpuppy returns to her dying father, a strong warrior ready to lead her tribe, as it were. *** END SPOILER *** Now how you feel about such a scene (its trite heavy-handedness vs its deft myth-making) may determine your overall impression of the film. As for me, while i can certainly understand objections of those who see this as a mass of "magical negro" cliches and a kind of white condescension to the spiritual superiority of the po' country black folk, I think the film is well meant and beautifully crafted, and it has its own unique power despite its storytelling deficiencies. And i never turn my nose up at a good myth-maker. while its too flawed to be great, its too good to be easily dismissed.

Saw it the other night. noticed there wasn't a thread or a poll. Considering its up for some Oscars, we should discuss, no?

You sound like a girl at a gang bang. Relax sweetheart and take it all in.

they not only don't explain, any time anybody tries to have a "time travel paradox" conversation someone (Jeff Daniels in one scene, and Bruce Willis in another) says something about not wanting to discuss it because it makes their head hurt. Willis even screams "it doesn't matter!" to get the audience to stop trying to figure it out. That being said, what they show does deal intelligently with the paradox issues. my problems with the film are that its "heroes" are stone cold assassins and drug addicts with little remorse. I found it hard to get too involved in their plight. Of course, the payoff deals with that, but it has less punch than it should because Leavitt is such a dick [willis, too, for that matter. just about everyone, really] still an excellent film overall with little reliance on SFX, or wild visuals, or hi-tech stuff that SF films tend to lean on as a crutch for poor storytelling. Good SF can be 2 guys talking in an empty room, with a naked bulb overhead. It took the 1-2 punch of 2001 and STAR WARS to change our expectations for the genre. This film harkens back to a more cerebral approach.

Atchison? Now all we have to do is promote Mejia and trade with the Os to get back Darren O'Day. Then we'd have a bullpen of... Atchison, Mejia and D O'Day.

i love that idea. i had an eye on Blanks when he first was on his way up to SD, and had high hopes for him. He reminds me of Kevin Mitchell.

i want that kid arrested!

Lefty's point is overstated in that there certainly was never any consensus among NYM fans that Bobby had to go. But at the same time what those of us who are Bobby fans have to remember is that BV had a huge number of detractors even when things were going well back in '99 or '00, and then even more later on. Agreed, but it was my sense of it was that BV's detractors were largely among the media itself (which he always treated contemptuously as the idiotic rabble they invariably were [and are]), as well as the pampered players (whose manipulations the fans were largely either indifferent to or in favor of) and the Mets and MLB brass (whom fans generally despise). I think fans were largely in support of BV right up to his firing and, were it put to a vote, they would have kept him over Phillips, the owners, the players, or the media covering the team.

"I am in discussions with several outfielders. I met them on the Internet." �GM Sandy Alderson, at the Baseball Writers' Association of America's New York Chapter dinner.

At the end of his tenure in 2002, Met fans couldn't wait to be rid of him speak for yourself, bub.

he's an outfielder and the Mets believe they are weak in the outfield. The Mets "believe" they are weak in the OF? Do you mean to imply that you don't think it's an objective reality; that it's only a matter of their belief? Or is my inference unwarranted and unintended?

Gilliam has always seemed to me the Orson Welles of modern British fantasy. Great talent and ambition, but his reach almost always exceeds his grasp, and he's as likely to wreck the ship as bring it safely to port. I don't think its coincidence that they were both lured into attempting a Don Quixote film that crashed and burned. Yet, when he's good, he's as good as anybody has ever been. sigh. and that your wife can quote David Warner from TB is a testament both to her, and to you for marrying her. actually, they marry US, don't they?

ah, TIME BANDITS. overlooked and underrated. perversely dark ending, brilliant design. I need to think about a Gilliam filmography... unless i've done one already. i don't remember. "Heroes! What do they know about a day's work?"

Centerfield wrote: I have no idea who Shaun Marcum is. But I'm on board for liking this move because lots of other smart people think so, and I like to publicly agree with smart people when I don't know enough to have an opinion of my own. So for the record, fuck yeah I like this move. i only know him cuz i picked him up for my fantasy team a few years ago, coming off the TJ surgery, and he did well for me. i remember things like that. a guy performs for me, he has my gratitude. until he shits the bed, at which point i burn him to the ground.

lets get CF in on this; he's a lawyer, too.