Vic Sage

Where there are lawyers, there are arguments being made about how rules are interpreted (rarely are they as self-evident as you would think). That's what we do. And often, statutory interpretation is based on an examination of the purpose of the rule. Here, the purpose was to allow the ten worst teams to pursue FAs without penalty, to allow them an advantage to improve themselves. I can see MLB agreeing to this "interpretation" and giving the Mets a waiver from strict construction of the rule, even over the objections of some owners. But since this is not a dispute between the League and the Player's Assn (who would have NO problem extending a waiver to the mets, and the other 20 teams as well), and would just be an internal dispute among owners, i'm not sure what the mechanism is by which such a "waiver" would be granted. Perhaps Commissioner Selig (good friend of the Wilpons) can just pronounce it (like an executive order) with his broad "best interests of bb" powers bestowed on him by the owners.

i like this move. Marcum is often hurt (bad mechanics leading to TJ surgery on 09, plus chronic elbow problems since), but when he's available, he's pretty good. He's better than Young, certainly. Perhaps they'll sign Young, too, and build 1 SPer out of the pair of them. They only have to last until Wheeler is ready mid-season.

Andrew Brown is the real prize here. That's so funny, i pulled a muscle. oh wait, you were serious.

i can't believe they're even considering this. Bourn has a career OPS around .700 and an OPS+ of 90. In the 5 years since becoming a starter in 2008, he's put up the following OPS+: 57 / 97 / 89 / 103 / 99. That was his prime, folks -- age 25-29. Boras is now looking to get him a 6yr/$100m contract; but even if he goes for 3yr/$45m, he's not worth it. He's a good glove/speed guy with no power, a mediocre OB%, and an average of 50bb/125k as a leadoff hitter, who is now moving into his 30s. Sure, a 50sb/GG CFer ain't nothing, but with that kind of "peak production", i don't want to be on the hook for his decline. Maybe if it didn't cost us the #11 pick, and if the deal didn't last longer than 3 guaranteed years or so, and if the pricetag didn't cripple the budget and hamstring Sandy's ability to make adjustments during the season and in upcoming years, then sure. fine. But right now it does, it will and it likely would. so no thanks.

reminded me of APOLLO 13, in that it successfully created tension in telling a real life story about which you already knew the outcome. well crafted. Arkin + Goodman = good stuff. Affleck has turned out to be a much better director than he is an actor. If he keeps this up, i might eventually forgive him for fucking up DAREDEVIL.

Pedro's triple happiness... he gets a fat check from the Yanks, doesn't give them an inning, then comes home. cool beans.

SHERLOCK kicks serious ass; ELEMENTARY is eh.

Because the value of win 89-91 that Hairston could provide an expected 89 win team is worth a hell of a lot more to a team than the value of win 75-77 well, that's exactly what i meant by marginal utility. maybe i used the wrong phrase or i didn't explain it right. But the wisdom of the decision is ALSO related to the team's budget, because, if we were spending in the $150m budget range, that means we would likely have bought some very good players and we would be less likely to be in the 75 win range and more likely to be in the 90 win range where Hairston's marginal utility becomes meaningful, as we both agree it would be in that situation.

I'm not sure what 'spending like a big market team' means. Why not sure? It's fairly easy to figure out. The top 6 payrolls in baseball are all in the $150m-$200m range. The Mets are not going to be one of them, opting to spend in the $80-$90m range, along with a bunch of mid-market teams. Because we're in New York Sandy should not worry about throwing away an extra $4 million here and there? For one, that's part of the problem that got us into this mess. Giving Cora the full $2 million to be a backup, or Castillo the extra $6 in the form of an extra year. That stuff can add up. yes, because we're in NY, we should be operating with a budget competitive with other similar market teams. $4m here or there SHOULDN'T matter, if you've only committed $85m of a $150m budget. But of COURSE it matters if you're only planning to spend $90m total, and you still have a lot of slots to fill. And no, it wasn't the Cora contract that "got us into this mess". It was the Bay contract, and the Perez contract, and F-Rod's contract and, frankly, the Santana contract... it was long overpriced commitments on big key guys that didn't produce that hamstrung the organization, not $2m to Cora. And it was suspect talent evaluation that allowed them to look at Castillo and say "i want this guy as a starter on my team", never mind the contract price. But when a big market team makes mistakes like these, they eat it and move on. When the Mets do it, they are hamstrung. And two, if you're going to overpay, I'd rather give a guy like Dickey, or Wright, or Upton that extra $4 that maybe they don't deserve than a guy you hope isn't even a starter. Value is a matter of context. First of all, Hairston had around 400 plate appearances over 135 games last year and so saying "he isn't even a starter" or carping about his OBP misses the point; he was a major component of whatever offense we had, and with a young all-LHed OF, he is precisely the kind of experienced RH-ed bat somebody looking at this lineup objectively would say is needed. But how much to pay for that? Well, "starter's money" is considerably more than $4m/yr, so Hairston's not even asking for starter's money. And if the Mets were close to contention, and had more room in their projected payroll, then Scott's marginal utility to them would be greater and they would, could and should pay the man, because they could afford him and he would put them closer to the their goal. Of course, you still have to factor in issues of competition for his services and scarcity of his skills in the market, but you don't really have to get to that level of analysis because neither the "payroll" nor "contention" criteria are met by the 2013 Mets, so yes, I would agree that Sandy should pass at that price.

again, this wouldn't be an issue if either (a) we were being run like a big market team, or ( we were one 4th OFer/RHed PHer away from serious contention. But neither is true, so while i'd like them sign Hairston, or a comparably experienced RHed power bat that can play all 3 OF slots (oh, wait, there isn't one out there), its really not a big deal one way or the other for 2013. We are not desperate for a platoon/4th OFer... we're desperate for a FIRST OFer. And Scotty isn't one.

while i generally don't get the whole concept of ritual scarring and self-mutilation, there's something kind of sweet about Kemp using his body to pay tribute to his grandparents. I mean its grotesque, but kind of sweet.

Why is there greater uncertainty? I'm not so sure there is. Why? because Hairston has accumulated around 2400 plate appearances at the major league level, with an OPS+ of 100. Whereas Brown has about 150 appearances... with an OPS+ of 72, not that it means anything with such a small sample size. Which is my point. Brown is ALL projection; Hairston has actual production which can be measured and more reliably projected. So yes, i'd say there's greater certainty that Hairston can be a useful major leaguer next year, since he has already BEEN a useful major leaguer for extended periods during the last 9 years. With Brown, all you can do is discount his small sampling of major league ABs, look at his minor league numbers and hope. But until he does it, he hasn't done it, and any projection that says he CAN do it is just that... projection. Hairston has done it, for more than 1 season over his career, and in the absence of an injury history or indications of premature aging, his production is more likely to REcur than Brown's is to OCccur. I don't know why this is a controversial view; it seems to me self-evident. The only question is how much is that greater degree of certainty worth? If $4m is meaningless to a team, then its worth spending on it. If it will impact a team's ability to fill out the rest of the roster, then its probably not worth doing. Since we're being operated with a budget 50% to 100% less than the big market teams currently are spending, clearly money is an issue and Hairston won't be worth signing.

Bill James calculates Hairy Projections .250 / .307 / .444 // .751. Bill James calculates Brown Projections: .264 / .330 / .475 // .805. Obviously, there's no guarantee it shakes out that way, and obviously it's better to have both than one or the other, and obviously you may have aesthetic reasons for preferring brown projections vs. hairy ones, or hairy ones vs. brown ones, but there's a certain liberating grace to accepting that veterans with modest but not overwhelming track records aren't the only ones who can fill your bench, just the more expensive one. (And let's be honest --- what are you paying more for, except ass coverage?) It sure as heck demonstrates a faith in the guys you pay to do your scouting and statistical evaluations. It's certainly not the only way to go, but it's the way that gave us Mike Baxter instead of Willie Harris in 2012. projections are very nice, particularly Bill James projections, but one is based on a guy's actual major league production, and the other is based on minor league production with no major league track record. I know Bill espouses a view on a reliable projectability of minor league numbers to major league production, but there is a greater uncertainty there than in projecting a major league hitter's production, barring aging and injury (which are not factors with Hairston). Now is that additional certainty worth $4m a year, for the next 2 years, over Brown's minimum compensation? It would absolutely be worth it, if the Mets payroll was in the range of the other major media market teams ($150/$200m), but its not, so budget constraints probably force Sandy to look at riskier less expensive options.

saw it in 2D, and it didn't much help.

craig swan?

GOLDEN GLOBES BEST PICTURE: DRAMA "Argo" "Django Unchained" "Life of Pi" "Lincoln" "Zero Dark Thirty" BEST PICTURE: COMEDY OR MUSICAL "Exotic Marigold Hotel" "Les Miserables" "Moonrise Kingdom" "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" "Silver Linings Playbook" BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM "Amour" "A Royal Affair" "The Intouchables" "Kon-Tiki" BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM "Brave" "Frankenweenie" "Hotel Transylvania" "Rise of the Guardians" "Wreck-It-Ralph"

i guess i haven't been paying attention, because i don't know what Wilson does that is so irritating. Besides the fact that he used to get hitters out, and now not so much. Are people offended by beards? I don't care, i'm not shaving.

you beat me to it. I would wager that any screens in the Williamsburg area showing the film will be among the lowest grossing in the entire tri-state area.

odds on winning NL pennant: [u:jucvazsz]NL EAST[/u:jucvazsz] Nationals 4/1 Phils 7/1 Atl 8/1 Mets 50/1 Fla 50/1 [u:jucvazsz]odds on winning WS:[/u:jucvazsz] Houston Astros 100/1 Minnesota Twins 100/1 San Diego Padres 100/1 Colorado Rockies 100/1 Miami Marlins 100/1 New York Mets 100/1 Don't tell Ceetar.

i like Upton; he's 25 and already a .280/20-20 guy, with more upside as he comes into his prime. He's under contract for 3 more years ($9m/$14.5/$14.5) and, while not a cheap deal, I wouldn't be surprised if he averaged 25-30hrs/100r/100rbi over the next 3 years, which would make that deal worth it. AZ seems motivated to move him for some reason, and we obviously have a need. But we'd likely have to give up 4 prospects for him (like the deal Seattle offered and AZ accepted, before Upton vetoed it) and so, between that and his salary, i don't see it happening. still, if it were to cost us a package of Familia, Mejia, Flores, and the Toronto pitcher we got in the Dickey deal, it would likely have little impact on the major league club's W/L record for the next 3 years, so I'd probably do it.

The increasing demand for realism has rendered the surrealism of the movie musical increasingly anachronistic. I'm not sure i understand what increasing demand for realism you are referring to. Action/SF/Fantasy films totally dominate our movies, and our popular culture; our literature is largely escapist fare. "Realism", like political satire, closes on Saturday night. sure, "reality tv" has been a successful tv genre but its got as much to do with "realism" as superhero movies and has not translated to the big screen. I agree that the conventions of the musical genre, like those of westerns and pirate movies, have fallen out of popular taste and seem anachronistic, and its harder to make one these days that can land with an audience (particularly younger audiences who may never have even seen one before). But i don't think it has anything to do with "realism", and some musicals have worked recently that deal with realistic premises or issues ("Dreamgirls", "Chicago", "Hairspray", "Mamma Mia") even while dealing them in musical theater terms.

But let me be frank: putting musical plays on the silver screen is not a good idea. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. some good ideas: ON THE TOWN OKLAHOMA MY FAIR LADY WEST SIDE STORY SOUND OF MUSIC OLIVER FUNNY GIRL FIDDLER ON THE ROOF CABARET ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW HAIR LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS GREASE CHICAGO DREAMGIRLS HAIRSPRAY HEDWIG & THE ANGRY INCH SWEENEY TODD some bad ideas: LIL ABNER PAINT YOUR WAGON ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER MAME MAN OF LA MANCHA GODSPELL THE WIZ ANNIE THE FANTASTICKS EVITA PHANTOM OF THE OPERA RENT THE PRODUCERS MAMMA MIA

Critics� Choice Movie Awards announced today (WINNERS IN BOLD): BEST FEATURE Argo Beasts of the Southern Wild Django Unchained Les Miserables Life of Pi Lincoln The Master Moonrise Kingdom Silver Linings Playbook Zero Dark Thirty BEST COMEDY Bernie Silver Linings Playbook Ted This Is 40 21 Jump Street BEST ANIMATED FEATURE Brave Frankenweenie Madagascar 3 ParaNorman Rise of the Guardians Wreck-It Ralph BEST ACTION MOVIE The Avengers The Dark Knight Rises Looper Skyfall BEST SCI-FI/HORROR MOVIE Cabin in the Woods Looper Prometheus BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM Amour The Intouchables A Royal Affair Rust and Bone BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE Bully The Imposter Queen of Versailles Searching for Sugar Man The Central Park Five West of Memphis

It's not hypocrisy to say one year a guy should be in the hall of 'fame' and then not vote him in? no, because guys can change their mind over time. but that's not what i was talking about anyway, and you know that. I'm talking about the brickbats hurled their way (including in this thread) because they didn't report on the PEDs while it was happening, but are now holding it against players in HoF voting. and i repeat: that's not "hypocrisy". That's doing 2 different jobs. whether they're doing either of those jobs WELL or not is another matter. But that's about competence. But it's not the hypocrisy that's the real issue. No one's laid down exactly what the integrity clause means, but you have to be pretty damn dense to think it means to only elect 'good guys' into a baseball inner circle. there's a world of difference between "only electing good guys" and choosing not to vote for cheaters and felons. And that's well beyond the crap arguments used to not vote for Piazza or Bagwell. writers have their suspicions about those guys. You may not credit their suspicions; neither might I. But this not a courtroom and they have no requirement to use only evidence sufficient for legal standards; their reasons can be entirely their own. The integrity clause is being used as an excuse for voters to play favorites and support their own personal biases. just as ignoring the clause by some voters supports THEIR biases. This entire process is a game of favorites and personal biases. If the HoF didn't want it not to be, they could vote to change the mechanism tomorrow, using blue ribbon panels, quantitative analyses and other more objective mechanisms. But as of now, this is the system, and blaming the voters because, in the aggregate, they came to a different decision than you would, is fine i guess, but not very meaningful.

Whether we or the voters like it or not, there is a character/sportsmanship criteria for HoF selection, and so voters are by definition asked to be moral arbiters of the game and watchdogs at the gate. Some voters ignore that obligation, some observe it only in exteme (in their view) situations, some just factor it in on a case-by-case basis, and some may use it to boost certain otherwise-borderline candidacies. But as a consequence, without any guidelines offered by the HoF, the BBWAA or MLB, the vote will necessarily be all over the board on the PEDs issue and only time will allow a consensus to emerge. So everybody needs to take a pill and calm down. Nobody has a constitutional right to be in the HoF, and they certainly don't have a right to be in TODAY as opposed to a year from now. Also, as long as we are asking the writers covering the players to do so objectively while also being their moral arbiters, there will be an inevitable conflict with their journalistic integrity (such as it is), when they are covering stories they themselves are participating in. When people yell at the voters for their hypocrisy, because they are refusing to vote for guys they should have exposed in the first place, they are conflating these 2 very different roles. That the writers either didn't know or chose not to report about PEDs use while it was happening (for the most part), or their editors or publishers refused to run such stories, is an issue with them as professional journalists and investigative reporters. As HoF voters, on the other hand, they are still obligated to consider the character/sportsmanship issue, on whatever basis they individually choose to assess it, no matter how they covered the PEDs issue at the time. It's not "hypocrisy"... it's their obligation as voters. Otherwise they should all recuse themselves and a new jury pool sworn in. Which would be ok too, since none of them would have survived a voir dire in the first place.