Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: An increasingly sequel-dependent Pixar has announced a fourth installment on the franchise. Rumors ebberywhere about plot concepts. Woody and the gang are beat up and decrepit. There are shiny new toys that work correctly and the gang has to save themselves from the trash heap and reestablish the value of old favorites. or Child isn't playing with toys anymore, she's always on her iPad or playing video games with super graphics. Woody and the gang lament the loss of imagination and venture to try to cultivate it in their child.

you got a deadline for this? I haven't gotten to it yet.

I'm excited, particularly by the Civil War stuff, which I was hoping for years ago. I'm about 4 movies behind on the Marvel stuff though, need to catch up. Wonder if they're on Amazon Prime..

Frayed Knot wrote: Not to steer this thread away from the topic too far, but one problem with WAR is that it's an estimate (well thought-out or otherwise) that's too often treated as if stone-cold fact. (it's not as bad a QB-ratings, but along those same lines). That doesn't mean it should be ignored, only that I think it should be looked at more as a piece of an argument rather than as the end of one. As far as things go for our annual rankings deal here, while there aren't any rules as to how one comes up with a list, it's traditionally been one where the choices were yours that you could defend if challenged and/or be willing to change if convinced otherwise. Not sure if GWreck meant that WAR-iffic list as one he wants to submit as is or if it was included for informational/comparison purposes only, but it would seem counter to the spirit of this now 12 or 13 year long project if all folks did was look up certain stats and consider that as the final answer. I think a lot of it has to do with the faultiness of defensive stats. But yeah, estimates. a 6 WAR and a 5.5 WAR for instance doesn't say anything about which player is better, but generally the players with the best WAR do pass the eye test for being the best players in the league, so it's hard to say it's less 'wild guess' than James implies.

and if Papa Grande isn't #1, you're doing it wrong.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: OK thanks. Gonna screw all you guys with big $$ raises put it all on David Wright please.

after arb which I think is 11/15. I mean, you can drop 'em now but on the off chance someone wants to give a +$1 to a guy you're going to drop, you save money by waiting. And before 1/31. That's the keeper deadline.

TEAMS Brettanomyces Tart-ans (this is a beer joke) - Ceetar Greenpoint Lunchladies - mbtn01 Alpine Albatrosses - Mets Marathon smg58 - Not sure who this is. Stony Brook Devil Toads - seawolf Mohawk Red Flyers - mgmlax85 Muddy Chickens - ryanflc Hungrypup - j1mbo15 Giant Gay Liberal Media Deathship - LWFS Easton Assassins - bootlucky Snukes - SaltyGary Miracle Monks - transmonk I don't know if anyone's interested in a second league, but the other league I'm in appears to have an abandoned team (Spa City Nine League of Lev) http://ottoneu.fangraphs.com/claimteams metsmarathon has found us a replacement for ABNS, but if anyone else is planning on dropping out, let me know? Also, Arbitration. Got another 2 weeks or so to make everyone elses rosters more expensive.

metsmarathon wrote: don't forget! arbitration season opens today! (be gentle!) should we look into getting a replacement for the cornballers? if so, should we have it in place before we conclude arbitration? i may have a friend who would be interested. Couldn't hurt. Though missing arbitration ain't a huge bother. Anyone else here interested?

Congrats. I imagine Jordan's no-hitter helped. Yeah, looks like we need at least one player. Dunno if anyone is interested internally.

Don't think this one's here already (title isn't very searchable). Fancy cast Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo Woody Harrelson , Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine.. 4 street-magician/con-artists/illusionist get together for a group act where they rob banks as part of audition for a magical secret society and the FBI try to pin them down all the while. Not the greatest movie or anything, but it was a fun adventure in illusion and trickery. Typical thriller/heist type movie. Good cast and witty dialogue. Was an enjoyable ride.

Still space in that other sport that i have a league in just for the sake of pretending I'm interested. https://yho.com/nfl?l=399458&k=281e9fa0d529dbd8 also this silly one that I made with weirder scoring rules just to be a contrarian. https://yho.com/nfl?l=399388&k=1ccfd7c82684074c

metsmarathon wrote: this season seems like its going to be a real barn-burner right until the end. Quite a difference from what it looked like in july, eh? [grumble grumble] troy tulowitzki [/grumble grumble] and I continue to suck. My slugging absolutely sucks, the main culprit here.

Was in The Crazy Ones tv show last year. Watched the first couple of episodes and enjoyed it but it fell off my DVR due to timing.

This was okay. It was a little slow and awkward at times though. But rarely when the "drinking buddies" were together which I guess helps emphasize the point. The resolution seemed very forced and abrupt though. Particularly when they're moving the couch and then when they're done with all the moving and have that little fight. Just seemed rather plodding and then all of a sudden "here you are, some resolution" and done. Made me want a beer though.

I really despised Unbreakable. I loved the concept I just felt like it didn't go anywhere and nothing really happened in the movie. The most lasting impression I have of the movie is the character calling up his boss and asking "When was the last time I took a sick day?" and getting a raise out of it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: One of the best things about Mean Girls, to my mind? It was an adaptation of a book... a how-to guide to teen behavior for parents. Ha! I still snicker that the father in the movie is the janitor from Scrubs.

Edgy MD wrote: Saw a preview of that last week, and it seemed weepingly bad. Probably one of the oldest and (and emptiest) comic tropes there be. My wife wants to see it, so I can report back if you like. (if we actually see it..best intentions, etc) I kinda like Leslie Mann and as I said about Mean Girls, I do sorta enjoy the trope some if it's done right. As long as you don't really take yourself too seriously and mix in enough humor. (checks) I AM conflating the movies. It's not Mean Girls it's John Tucker Must Die. .Mean Girls deals more with the new kid trying to fit in makes real friends but ditches them to be popular but then realizes what's important trope. Produced by SNL's Lorne Michaels and written by Tina Fey, so that probably explains some of the cult following. Anyway, yeah, it'll probably suck. Hoping for enough comedy that it'll at least have it's moments, but not hopeful.

Frayed Knot wrote: I didn't know until the rash of TENTH ANNIVERSARY articles and retrospectives (at least a dozen in the last week or so) that the movie MEAN GIRLS was a major cultural touchstone in this country. I mean, look, I realize that I was way out of the target demographic for this flick and all, but I don't think I even heard about it until years after it was out and even then it was only because Lohan was becoming such a mess by that point that that movie was brought up to show that there was actually a time before she was a human train wreck. But apparently MEAN GIRLS was THE culturally shared experience for the first decade of the 21st century with more quotable lines known to all than anything since maybe CASABLANCA, or at least since ANIMAL HOUSE. I'd noticed that as well. I saw the movie years ago and even enjoyed it, but I don't know when/why it suddenly became such a..thing. It seems like the last year or two. I also always conflate it with John Tucker Must Die. I think that new movie with the three women all sleeping with the same guy and conspiring against him is basically a grown up version of one of those two. Again, conflating.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm paying the price for my patience with Grandyman. What a complete rate-killer that guy's been. I'm lacking in power but my main problem has been my pitchers are either sucking or broken. got like 6 pitchers on the DL.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm still struggling with remembering to check lineups everyday, particularly the weekends. Is that a new thing this year? Weekends? I hear they've had them forever.

I'm still struggling with remembering to check lineups everyday, particularly the weekends.

isn't it sometimes just about doing a favor and appearance fees? Don't some guys get stupid high money whenever they're credited based on SAG agreements or something?

I'm with those who thought the movie to be fun and with some good performances but not all that deep. You can barely can figure out who's scamming who much less why and so I didn't find myself caring all that much how things turned out. Now for the real question: Why was Robert DeNiro's part in this not only uncredited but also unmentioned in all (at least all that I've heard) the discussion of this much talked-about film? I think they should have an Oscar for best cameo. It'd be kinda fun. Maybe he wasn't mentioned because he was unaccredited and there's a lot of inner circle proprities stuff going on in Hollywood? But it's a good point. I enjoyed that scene even if it didn't ultimately seem to have much relevance.