Vic Sage

------- (great) 30 - DICKEY 29 - WRIGHT -------- (good) 28 - NIESE ---------(ok) 27 - MURPHY 26 - DAVIS 25 - HAIRSTON 24 - SANTANA 23 - HARVEY 22 - TEJADA --------- (not bad) 21 - GEE 20 - PARNELL 19 - YOUNG 18 - RAUCH 17 - DUDA 16 - BAXTER -------- (increasingly bad, inconsistent or absent) 15 - NIEUWENHUIS 14 - VALDESPIN 13 - CEDENO 12 - BYRDAK 11 - TURNER 10 - FRANCISCO 9 - TORRES 8 - THOLE 7 - PELFREY 6 - QUINTANILLA -------- (from bad to worse) 5 - R.RAMIREZ 4 - HEFNER 3 - EDGIN 2 - ACOSTA 1 - BAY hitters not making my list (50+ ABs): Nickeas, Shoppach, R.Johnson [coincidentally, all our backup catchers] pitchers not making my list (20+ IP): Batista, E.Ramirez, McHugh

Frayed Knot wrote: C -- Molina (StL) & Weiters (Bal) 1B -- LaRoche (Wash) & Teixeira (NYY) 2B -- Barney (CHC) & Cano (NYY) SS -- Rollins (Phi) & Hardy (Bal) 3B -- Headley (SD) & Beltre (Tex) LF -- Gonzalez (Col) & Gordon (KC) CF -- McCutcheon (Pitt) & Jones (Bal) RF -- Heyward (Atl) & Reddick (Oak) P -- Buehrle (Fla) & Hellickson (TB)/Peavey(CWS) tie Hardy, Reddick, Hellickson, Peavey, LaRoche, Barney, Headley, McCutcheon & Heyward are first-time winners i know nothing about defensive metrics, and what i do know i don't like, so i rely primarily on anecdotal information and aesthetic impressions to make GG assessments. 1B -- LaRoche (Wash) & Teixeira (NYY): both are legit gloves who didn't win it with their bats this year, as both get it over some superior hitters. 2B -- Barney (CHC) & Cano (NYY): i know nothing about Barney, but Brandon Phillips appears to have lost some range and i'm not sure Hill ever had any, so good for Barney. Cano? a joke, i think. won it with his bat. SS -- Rollins (Phi) & Hardy (Bal): I've long thought Hardy a great glove, but Rollins? He lost it years ago. That's a total joke. 3B -- Headley (SD) & Beltre (Tex): These seem legit to me, even if it was Mr. Wright's best year in a while. LF -- Gonzalez (Col) & Gordon (KC): I would've gone with Braun and Jennings, but i can't argue. CF -- McCutcheon (Pitt) & Jones (Bal): Is this the beginning of the anti-SABR backlash against Trout? McCutcheon is great. RF -- Heyward (Atl) & Reddick (Oak): Is Heyward all that and a bag of chips? Not with his glove he ain't. I'd take Bruce's cannon-shot arm. Reddick? I don't know. He seems like a solid all-around play P -- Buehrle (Fla) & Hellickson (TB)/Peavey(CWS): It seems to me this award would favor the junkballers who pitch to contact, so i don't take it all that seriously.

Frayed Knot wrote: I remember, as part of the media's ongoing attempt to "fix" baseball, someone proposing just that a bunch of years ago. They (it was probably S.I.) had the lavish ceremony taking place in Las Vegas rather than Radio City but the concept was the same. The biggest problem I can see would be getting the players to actually show up. Between the end of a long season, winter ball, and the scattered corners of the globe to where the players tend to head for the off-season, there'd probably need to be an incentive to get them to such a gathering above and beyond simply the possibility of accepting an award. blowjobs from starlets? get that going and i think they'd make time.

absolutely. His last 2 seasons have been his best, just as he's coming into his prime years, now at age 28. Now maybe his sudden improvement is due to PEDS or maybe just the natural development of a hitter at ages 26-27. Or more likely a combination of the two. In any event, its worth taking a chance to find out. He'll probably be willing to take a cheap 1-year deal just to reestablish his value, probably in the $3m-$5m range, i would guess. which is a good fit for us, given our needs in the OF.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14559&p=366483&hilit=clint+Eastwood#p366483

there's speculation in the organization that Wright will be re-signed, but Dickey will be traded this winter if a long-term deal isn't reached relatively quickly. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2012/10/26/3558722/david-wright-contract-ra-dickey-free-agent

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sounds like he's worth a shot. Hopefully he'll play well enough to at least breathe on Josh Thole's neck a little. If he can't play well enough to breath down Thole's neck, then he lacks a pulse.

http://www.amazinavenue.com/2012/10/23/3543318/new-york-mets-mike-pelfrey-andres-torres-non-tender Mets planning to non-tender both Pelfrey and Torres, then try to bring them both back at cheaper rates. But is that even permitted under non-tender rules?

how come pitchers not only get to compete in 2 categories of their own, they can also compete in the "best player" category, too? The "Best Player" category should be for starting players (in this case, Wright in a landslide over Ike and Murph); you can then have a "Schaefer Met of the year" category that includes everybody. (in this case, Wright edged out Dickey, as you noted). I had the same problem with MVP voting until they created the Hank Aaron award. otherwise, its a lovely job. those cards are so cool.

he's pro-Gary, and always was.

And he plays for the Mets, too. Hot damn. Back row, 2nd dude on the left. Nah, that's the dude that SWALLOWED him. And that kid with Down Syndrome, who played "Corky" on the TV show LIFE GOES ON... isn't that him 3rd from the right, in the front? i'm so happy for him.

i'm not dogging Gil... i love Gil. I just think his impact was greatly romanticized based on the enormity of the accomplishment (worst to first; clownish expansion team to world champions), his own Brooklyn hero roots, and his sudden tragic death. Other than `69, his managerial career was not particularly successful either before or after, and Yogi led the team to a Pennant and WS game 7 only 4 years later. So I don't think Gil was really the difference in their success as much as he was a symbol of change for the franchise.

i get why SF over StL, but why Tigers over Giants?

stop the presses (what an archaic term!)... i agree with Ceetar. and with Irish. except i don't think there's hundreds of guys who could manage, I think there's 10s of 1000s of guys. With maybe hundreds who have the tools to do it successfully. So giving up honest-to-goodness major league talent for a manager is a questionable decision. The impact of managers is VASTLY overstated, IMO, and they're barely worth their contracts. The best of them might be worth a game or 2 here and there along the course of a season, but what has John Farrell done (other than lose more than he's won), to suggest he's among the best of them? however, lets be real. Aviles is a 31 year old MI with no particular strengths and career OPS+ of 92. A useful bench player at best. So its not like Boston gave up anything. But in principle, and in general, i think its a bad idea. Take Gil, for example. Yes everybody credits him for the `69 turnaround. But might not that team have done what it did without him? After all, a few years later, Yogi took a similar bunch to game 7. And other than `69, he was a losing manager with the Senators and then the Mets in 68, and managed the 70-71 teams to 3rd place/just over .500 finishes. Given that overall record, i find it hard to believe he had such a significant impact on the production of the 69 team... a team that succeeded on a pair of young aces, a solid BP, great defense, and a couple of hitters in the OF and off the bench. That we gave up a marginal player who turned out to be nothing was certainly compensation we were happy to live with, but what if we had given up a prospect named Amos Otis instead (which we later did anyway, but i'm just making a point). Then maybe we reconsider how much Gil's quiet authority meant to that 100-win team. Now Aviles is NOT Otis, obviously, and as long as these deals deal with 31 year-old spare parts, then i guess its no harm. But i'd be critical of any such move that dealt prospects whose ceilings had not yet been reasonably understood.

alright, but only for scholarly purposes you understand.

What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? What must've been going on with the English language in London during the late 18th century that William Blake thought those 2 lines rhymed?

As long as we're reveling in the MFY's loss... At CF's request, i reposted my ode to a Yankee loss from 2001. It's here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18698

I originally offered this here after the Yanks lost the 2001 WS to Arizona. Reprinted here per request. To those who don't understand a Mets fan's joy in this Yankee loss... It is a blow against The Ubermensch. It is a strike back against the lockstep, jackbooted minions of the machine, pouring money into a bottomless, soulless maw while turning the crank that says, "win"... just "win", and nothing else will do. It is a victory for those who find nobility in the struggle alone, knowing ultimate victory is an illusion, out of one's control, except for the effort required to be ready should it come. It allows me to walk down the street now, without having to hear how the Yankees showed heart, and grit, and determination, in their miraculous 9th inning comebacks. As if they were somehow UNDERDOGS. If another franchise had managed those 2 consecutive 9th inning comebacks, they'd have a right to crow about it, whether they won the series or not. Great accomplishment, after all. But when your team's entire persona, raison d'etre, etc., is based ENTIRELY on how many rings they've got... well, the irony is Yankee fans will be loathe to mention those 2 comebacks because ULTIMATELY, the Yankees lost. And that is simply unacceptable in the land of Monument Park. Now, if you're a Red Sox fan, you can champion Fisk's homer as a moment of greatness, despite having dropped the `75 series to the Reds. Cuz Sox fans have learned, if nothing else, how to find value in baseball ASIDE from winning and losing. No Yankee fan can understand that idea. No Yankee fan can understand the sheer joy of being a true underdog, and fighting against enumerable odds to persevere. After all, what kind of personal character does it take to root for an indomitable winner? Where is the ennobling and humbling forge of loss in their lives? Yankee fans will never know the spiritual bliss of slaying a dragon. Because they cheer for the dragon. and today, the dragon is dead. and there shall be much rejoicing throughout the land. and I feel sorry for those who don't understand it.

that's as worthy an ambition as any i can think of.

14. Hoop Dreams (1994)-- I'll grant that this was probably easier to sit through at home than in the theater, but... heartbreaking, sterling work. Still. (If you didn't care about the people in this, frankly, it's on you.) Fine, it's on me. It was still a bore.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ...And I liked (really liked!) her tight t-shirts too. HEY, that's GIDGET, SYBIL and SISTER BERTRILLE (a NUN, fer crissakes) you're talking about! I don't care how tight her t-shirts get, that chick just ain't sexy; she was cute in her younger days, but never hot.

also: SILKWOOD BLUE COLLAR F.I.S.T. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION BOUND FOR GLORY NORTH COUNTRY SALT OF THE EARTH

what's irksome is Megdal uses theoretical bases for WRight's "worth", rather than real-world comparables. Ryan Zimmerman is a real-world comp, both in age and general production, and he signed a 6yr/$100m deal. Maybe Wright can squeeze more out of a NYC franchise than a DC franchise can afford, but its certainly reasonable to think its going to be in that range of 6-8yrs / $17m-$20m per, not $35m/yr, regardless of how much new tv money is floating around in the marketplace.

these kinds of critics lists always have a bias for the arty, esoteric, and ironic over the big, entertaining and sentimental. Also for the independent and international over Hollywood films.

i should give LONE STAR another try, i suppose. Its well thought of... maybe i was tired. concur on SECAUCUS 7; i like it better in theory than in practice. I used to work for the movie studio distributing it, so i always had to make an argument for it to potential licensors, vis-a-vis BIG CHILL.