Vic Sage

best Spidey villains (in descending order): Green Goblin Kingpin Venom / Carnage Doctor Octopus - The Sinister Six (Doc Ock teams up with Vulture, Electro, Kraven, Mysterio, and Sandman) Lizard

So very true. Hudson isn't even in the first half of the movie but ends up with at least three of the best quotable lines. * Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say. * This job is definitely *not* worth eleven-five a year! * That's a big Twinkie. * Since I joined these men, I've seen shit that'll turn you white. * Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"! * I love this town!

What, you think they should have listened to that dickless EPA lawyer? (It's true... that man had no dick) Nah. The EPA is for saps, i tell ya... This one holds up really well. It's one of the best movies of its era, and one of the best comedies ever, and certainly one of the handful of best HORROR/Comedies ever ON a list that includes: ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEETS FRANKENSTEIN LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS THEATER OF BLOOD ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE ROCKY HORROR SHOW AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON GREMLINS RE-ANIMATOR ARMY OF DARKNESS LOST BOYS FRIGHT NIGHT CREEPSHOW RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD EVIL DEAD II TREMORS DEAD ALIVE SCREAM FROM DUSK TIL DAWN SHAUN OF THE DEAD BEETLEJUICE ZOMBIELAND DARK SHADOWS CABIN IN THE WOODS

just saw ABRAHAM LINCOLN, VAMPIRE HUNTER on a plane trip. So now I won't be able to watch LINCOLN without expecting him to open up a can of whuppass with a two-handed axe.

It's the WAR war. It's stupid; Cabrera and Trout both had really good years. Either one is a valid MVP candidate. But the notion that a TRIPLE CROWN must = MVP is just silly. Why are OLD stats, which are demonstrably less related to run creation (and deal with run PREVENTION not at all) somehow SUPERIOR to modern stats, which have the benefit of being developed since the advent of computers and quantitative analysis? I think they are treated as better by some voters and commentators (and fans) just because they are more easily understood. And players sure don't want to hear about wins or RBIs being "team-dependent"; they take it as an article of faith that wins and RBIs are the consequence of personal character. They should all be excluded from these discussions. You don't ask a tree to describe the forest.

we're talking in circles. i'm not arguing for Ibanez, per se. I'm saying we shouldn't disqualify him because he's a LH. There may be plenty of other reasons to exclude him. Obviously if there are RHers available at a cheaper price, or even at the same price, as comparable LHers, they're preferable. But even while "handedness" could be a tiebreaker among similar players, it doesn't overcome the need for best possible players.

Ceetar wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I agree with Sherman's premise; Pitching + Power = winning team. So i don't think the Mets can be too choosy about populating their OF, vis-a-vis the L/R issue. They need players, regardless of what side they hit from. Sure, ideally you want some balance in the lineup, but the budget being what it is, Sandy's not in an "ideal" situation. I don't think he should pass on Garrett Jones, or even Ibanez, solely based on handedness. The Giants would disagree. and Ibanez really sucks. It's possibly to overcompensate for sure, but with Murphy, Davis, and probably at least most of Duda, Nieuwenhuis, Thole (And throw in Baxter and Turner as well) you need some right-balanced desperately or you're gonna get chewed up by lefty pitchers. the giants would disagree about what? that pitching and power is a viable formula? I didn't say its the ONLY way, nor did Sherman. But its a perfectly viable one. And Ibanez sucks? Tell that to the Orioles. At age 40, he hit 20 HRs in 400 PAs. Can he field? no, but neither can Duda. look, i'm not saying we should sign a 40+ year old guy on his way out, but we're going to have to be creative and broadminded in filling out this team in a way that will make it competitive on a budget eaten up by a small handful of players. And not all LHs are eaten up by lefty pitchers, and not all RHs are great at hitting lefties either. And beggars can't be choosers. we're going to have flaws somewhere. I'd just as soon they find the best available OFers and not be concerned overmuch by what side of the plate they stand on.

I agree with Sherman's premise; Pitching + Power = winning team. So i don't think the Mets can be too choosy about populating their OF, vis-a-vis the L/R issue. They need players, regardless of what side they hit from. Sure, ideally you want some balance in the lineup, but the budget being what it is, Sandy's not in an "ideal" situation. I don't think he should pass on Garrett Jones, or even Ibanez, solely based on handedness.

The movie is based on Goodwin's TEAM OF RIVALS, and only deals with the last 4 months of his life. I think that keeping the focus that narrow will allow for more interesting story-telling rather than trying to cover the full scope of his life. In fact, they are more likely to convey the full scope of his life by keeping the focus so narrow. DreamWorks has announced that the film "will focus on the political collision of Lincoln and the powerful men of his cabinet on the road to abolition and the end of the Civil War."[9] According to Spielberg, Doris Kearns Goodwin's entire book about Lincoln's presidency is "much too big" for a film, and said that the film will focus on the last few months of Lincoln's life, the ending of slavery and the Union victory in the Civil War. Spielberg said that "what permanently ended slavery was the very close vote in the House of Representatives over the Thirteenth Amendment � that story I'm excited to tell." Spielberg plans to show "Lincoln at work, not just Lincoln standing around posing for the history books...arguably the greatest working President in American history doing some of the greatest work for the world."

terry leach, jeff innis, Joe Smith, Darren O'day... i love side-armers. welcome, Greg.

parallel universe "Earth 2" story. c'mon man, keep up.

i'm looking forward to it. Day-Lewis is probably the best actor alive right now. If anybody could pull off Lincoln as both flawed human and superhuman myth, it's him. and that Spielberg kid is pretty good too, i hear. And then there's that Kushner writer feller; he don't have no flies on him neither. and if honest Abe wrassles a railsplitter with the world up on his shoulders, so much the better.

The Holliday/Bay Case (and wouldn't we all like to visit Holliday Bay?) might be cited in suggesting to a future GM that if you're going to be a bear, be a great big bad-ass bear. Maybe one with wings and gills to breathe under water. i totally agree with this. its the half-measures that kill you. oh and by the way, i think it was actually Lullaby Bay, close by to Hushabye Mountain: A gentle breeze from Hushabye Mountain Softly blows o'er lullaby bay. It fills the sails of boats that are waiting-- Waiting to sail your worries away. It isn't far to Hushabye Mountain And your boat waits down by the key. The winds of night so softly are sighing-- Soon they will fly your troubles to sea. So close your eyes on Hushabye Mountain. Wave good-bye to cares of the day. And watch your boat from Hushabye Mountain Sail far away from lullaby bay. -by Robert and Richard Sherman

i don't know that we have any more flexibility. Why would Bay give up a penny of what his contract gives him? To be released now rather than April? He's going to get a lowball offer (if any) no matter where he goes, and getting released early doesn't change that.

while i think its a good idea to remake it, i have little confidence that it will improve on its mediocre source. To be clear, i've always enjoyed RED DAWN as Milius's goofy amalgam of nationalistic jingoism and a "teen/coming of age" movie. It's just so cheesy, with acting so hysterically over the top, that a remake could take the "what if" premise and make it a little less stupid and a little more serious and intense, with realistic action on a big scale. but i doubt they've achieved that. i'm thinking about a filmography on Milius, Hollywood's resident zen fascist.

isn't Torres also a potential FA, like Young, Rauch, Ramirez, etc? Why does he get to stay on the 25man over Nieuhenheis, who will likely get another shot at CF if Torres is gone?

Well, the thing is that he's the only one in the major leagues these days who catches it at all. Hell, half the backstops in MLB have probably never seen one. there's no trick to catching the knuckleball. you wait till it stops rolling and pick it up. - Bob Uecker

5 different uniforms? sigh. whatever happened to home whites and road greys? They also look a little too close to the Orioles unis, no?

It will distinguish him from the stiffs currently populating our roster.

all he needs is a pulse and a functional knowledge of the game of baseball and he'll be an upgrade.

Vic is lowest on Tejada, highest on Pelfrey I've made a bunch of adjustments ... relatively competent if decidedly unspectacular types (Young, Thole, Byrdak, Rauch sometimes)... In what parallel universe was Thole "relatively competent if decidedly unspectacular"? In a universe with literally NO other catchers? where, if Thole's not there behind the plate, the ball just rolls to the backstop and the ball-boy has to throw it back to the pitcher? Because in any other universe, he sucked BHMC.

ok, got it. but maybe he was running as hard as he could? It always looked to me like Kevin McReynolds only ever jogged after balls, but everybody tells me he was a heck of an OFer (despite my eyeballs), so maybe its not an easy thing to assess.

Vic is lowest on Tejada, highest on Pelfrey I'm sure i'm understating the value of the one and overstating the value of the other. But i think it does accurately represent my preference for shorter but more productive contributions over longer but unproductive ones. Pelfrey's few starts were good. Tejada was a glove-only SS with an empty BA, who missed a month to boot. No love from me for that. It's better to burn out, than to fade away -- my my hey hey of course, there is a tipping point. If a guy plays badly but plays alot, isn't he contributing something more to the team than someone who plays almost not at all, regardless of success? Somewhere along the spectrum, even Bay's contributions are superior to a player with relatively few ABs or IPs. If we say it does not, that his contribution is entirely negative and the more he plays the more he hurts the team (which is true, too), then by that logic, I actually should be rated higher than Bay, since i just sat on my couch and didn't hurt the team at all. That being said, I ranked Bay last. So its a delicate procedure, this weighing of plusses and minuses, of comparing disparate contributions. More art than science, i think.

if he missed the same number of balls but seemed to care more about it, you'd rank him higher?

you're harder on Santana than ANY of us so far. but that's ok, that's why we do this. To wash out the "outliers". I thought long and hard about Santana. I could've talked myself into ranking him anywhere from 24 to 15. Based on his final numbers, he should be toward the bottom of that range, maybe lower (as low as 10? maybe). But his numbers were skewed by some really bad starts toward the end, where he was clearly pitching through injury. And any guy who gives us the 1st no-hitter in our history gets the benefit of the doubt from me.