Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: Sounds great. It really should be called Choking Up, though. I was thinking just this morning, as I saw Team of Rivals on my coffee table with a "Lincoln Prize" stamp on it, that we should morph into the Crane Pool Mets Research Society, and award a Dana Brand Prize each year for outstanding Mets publication. I like this idea. Let's do it. Gotta catalogue all the Mets releases..here? put up a poll for each one as people read it during the year..

I'm on this Nielsen list that occasionally gets me into free screeners (like Django a couple of weeks early) in this case it was _way_ early. just checked my mail, I saw this movie on April 12th, 2011. yikes. I wonder why it took so long to come out. It wasn't completely polished for instance (the cut scenes where he analyzes routes through intersections were very basic) but it looked pretty close. I definitely need to watch this again, I wonder if I'll remember what's different.

been over a year since I saw this, but I did enjoy it. High speed bike chases aren't the usual medium for high speed chases and high speed chases are awesome. there. Just enough hi-jinks to keep me entertained between chases.

Piglet's got a wicked changeup.

Swan Swan H wrote: metirish wrote: I used to really want to visit the HOF , not so anymore,....it's a bit of a joke. I've been there five or six times, and honestly spend 10% of my time, if that, in the 'Hall of Fame' area. The museum is the thing, and it's worth the visit. yeah, this. It's a good time. Frayed Knot wrote: In some cases a blank ballot might be the best one. That's not saying that some don't do that for stupid reasons, but I don't think we want to get into a situation where some higher power scrutinizes each ballot and takes the voting privileges away from anyone whose answers they don't like. One of the good things about a large ballot is that a handful of kooky votes can't skew the overall results too badly. If this stuff was all cut-n-dried obvious there wouldn't be the need for a vote in the first place. Nope. not submitting a ballot is fine, purposing voting against guys is not. They're asked who should be in the Hall of Fame, not who shouldn't. why should they be able to downgrade other voters by submitting blank?

Frayed Knot wrote: Blank votes as a protest over steroid issues are another story (a bit of a silly one if you ask me although I'm not going to bust a gut over someone doing that) Blank votes are like a professor submitting the answer key to count in the curve. The Hall isn't an inner sanctum protected by the writers, they're simply supposed to select who they think are deserving without politicizing it. Voting blank, moralizing, leaving guys off for a year or more because they want to punish a player are all against what they're supposed to be doing. Anyone suspecting of doing so, never mind admitting to doing so, should be stripped of their voting rights for 10 years. We've got zillions of writers out there that would love a vote. In a way though, they've already changed by letting in internet writers. Guys that I respect a hell of a lot more than Chass, Rubin et all like Eno Sarris will, granted 10 years from now, get a vote which I suspect will be used much more responsibly.

G-Fafif wrote: Relax. Rubin reports Justin Turner's got this one covered. A team insider said Justin Turner actually should get strong consideration as a platoon outfielder too, despite no experience out there. That could also allow the Mets to have both Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla on the roster as infielders. I like that "a team insider" is necessary to dispense a juicy tidbit like this. You mean we can have BOTH Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla? Don't toy with us, Mets. I mean, seriously, don't get our hopes up like that unless you mean it. (OTOH, Quintanilla and Hicks each logged time for playoff teams last year, so to use a phrase I heard Andy Martino proffer on Hot Stove last night, they're winning players.) The Mets have no SS depth and they have plenty of (albeit mostly crappy) OF depth. This is sloppy connecting the dots at best. I hope they re-sign Cedeno (or did he go somewhere already?) but right now Turner and Quintanilla (and Hicks..did they sign anyone else?) are it for backup SS. They need 1 in Queens, sure, but they probably need some in Vegas. It doesn't look like anyone is particularly ready for promotion there, and Flores stepped aside to third last year.

Gwreck wrote: not mutually exclusive. And as has always been the case, the Wilpons getting it together is probably the quickest path to a financial stable Mets organization. There's not a shred of evidence to support that idea, unless by "financially stable" you mean "unable to spend money on free agents." I guess the Mets are stable in their austerity. Nevermind that "the Wilpons getting it together," whatever that actually means, would presumably be basically the same thing as a "financially stable Mets organization." The Mets already gave up on 2013. Would they have done that if the Wilpons had sold at this point a year ago? The Mets had ZERO CHANCE of being sold this point a year ago. They have probably as little chance of being sold a year from now. There are two choices: The Wilpons getting themselves together and the Mets getting into the black instead of the red (which is different than the Wilpons being fine. Any 2013 punting and payroll manipulations are geared at that, regardless of Sterling) or the Wilpons leeching every last cent out of the Mets trying to stay solvent until there are no other options left but to sell them off. Megdal thinks this is still inevitable, that the Wilpons will not be able to afford to pay the bills on the Mets and be forced to sell them as a result, but from now until that sale is final, the Wilpons then leech every cent and the Mets continue to suck. And then things don't get better, they just get ..Different. Could be just as bad. That could be years and years. But if the Mets do well this year, if the prospects look like talent, and the Wilpons stop bleeding money, them being able to invest in the Mets (And the Mets making money in their own right) and the Mets being good in 2014 becomes..likely. I don't see how the Wilpons losing their grip on the team and being forced to sell happens anywhere approaching quick.

Gwreck wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: Good news If your name is Wilpon or Katz? or bad news, depending on your perspective. Every living person who wants the Mets to return to a championship-caliber ballclub? not mutually exclusive. And as has always been the case, the Wilpons getting it together is probably the quickest path to a financial stable Mets organization.

I'd argue that that crew isn't exactly doing justice to football or basketball either. But more people into baseball, even through the ESPN filter, will eventually be more people into baseball. After some get invested into it once ESPN tells them to (and thinking like 15 year old kids here) they'll be baseball fans and as they discover more intelligent discussion, we'll have more fans we actually enjoy conversing with. I'm not suggesting _I_ will watch/listen to the shows to hear what they're blathering on about, but I'd be fine with them telling people to watch baseball and hoping one or two breaks the shackles.

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Mostly I remember Mike & Mad Dog (Chris particularly) as being vehemently anti-Biggio for the HoF - which is as good a reason as any for a 'Yea' vote IMO. I heard Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio fame declare that Biggio doesn't belong anywhere near a Hall of Fame, while he'd put Canseco in. Reasoning, because of the FAME part! Canseco is much more FAMOUS than Biggio will ever be! My only comment to this is that it's exactly what I'd expect from Cowherd and that comments like these are why, rather than hoping he (and many of his ESPN brethren) would talk more baseball, I'd prefer they talk less. It's an interesting debate for sure. Do we want baseball to be closer to a tightly knit group of smart fans, or broad-reaching national pastime that everyone pays attention to? I lean towards the latter, which is why I always gladly welcome the Yankee bandwagoners to Queens when the opportunity arises.

I wanted to see at least twice as many and just never got to them. I will. in order: Django Unchained The Hunger Games Wreck-It Ralph The Avengers Premium Rush Ted 21 Jump Street Bourne Legacy (I think..) Alex Cross Anna Karenina

Benjamin Grimm wrote: As someone who thinks there are too many people in the Hall of Fame, I don't have a problem with a year in which nobody gets elected. Except there are _at least_ 4-5 no doubt about it Hall of Fame of the Hall of Fame guys on the ballot this year. You don't have to put someone in every year, but you sure do have to put in the guys that deserve it.

Swan Swan H wrote: Just ordered two seats for the 3/15 game at Disney. Home tickets haven't gone on sale yet. We're spending the first half of the week at a hotel on the beach in Ft. Lauderdale, then heading north for a little Spring Training and a peek at the new stuff Walt built at the Magic Kingdom. Sounds like fun. might be there for the green uniform'd 3/17 game!

Edgy MD wrote: They don't actually care about baseball, and have no idea who this Biggio guy from Hooston is? Being that at least one voter doesn't cover baseball anymore and retains the vote solely to not vote for Bonds/Clemens, I could see that.

Spring Training will determine it. They didn't want to go north with Nieuwenhuis either (although the depth charts were theoretically better, but Buck=Torres seems apt too) and ultimately didn't despite ST success until an injury forced the issue.

The Second Spitter wrote: The Second Spitter wrote: there's a 99.95% chance he'll make the 25 man roster I'm not so sure of that. I expect he'll play for the Mets before too much of 2013 has elapsed, but I doubt that he'll go north with the Mets when they break spring training. My guess is that we'll see d'Arnaud in June some time. Surely d'Arnaud is ahead of Recker in the depth chart . Is there somebody else I'm familiar with? d'Arnaud saves a year of arbitration by waiting on him a couple of weeks. barring injury it sounds like Recker/Buck

Paul DePodesta wants you to know Newest Met Andrew Brown is a career 321/414/612 against left-handers in the upper minors.

A couple say they are partials. Also I presume the idiots who do things like blank ballots or only vote for Dale Murphy probably get their ballots in earlier.

Frayed Knot wrote: Trading for G. Stanton is what you do when you believe yourself to be a 'this-year' team that's one player away and/or because you have a minor league system with prospects to spare who are blocked by the depth in your major league squad. We're not at either spot right now. Trading for Stanton is something you do when you believe your team is anything but perfect. He fits on roughly 29 of the 29 major league teams. The chances that even one of the guys you trade for him is worth as much as Stanton is probably slim, and clearly if the Marlins demand more than that it's not a trade you make, but there is very little downside to having Stanton on your team, this year or the three years following that, no matter what your expected record.

Edgy MD wrote: Stanton slugged over .600 last year. And his glove and arm are weaponized too. Whatever we're hoping for from our outfield prospects, he's it. this guy's clearly ready for promotion to the next level. He should be called up from the official MLB AAA club and I suggest Queens.

I went 2.5. saw it..sometime during this weekend. Was basically a romantic comedy though, without the overwhelmingly cheesy/sappy crap. (yes, the movie with the talking teddy bear was a more realistic version of a love story) Ted stands in for whichever plot point would be used to indicate the guy's lack of commitment, just Mila Kunis is just looking for equal footing rather than replacing his previous life.

nah, just meant that if you're curious of the date prior to clicking/reading.

That's January 26th, in case you're link-allergic.

This Junioir Seau story uses the bone-chilling teaser, "Within 24 months of retiring, three out of four NFL players will be one or more of the following: alcohol or drug addicted; divorced; or financially distressed/bankrupt. Junior Seau was all three." Keep up the good work, guys. NFL, NFL I'm just not buying what you sell. speaking of under-reported so much in fact I'm blanking on his name.. the baseball player that just killed himself.. Didn't he have concussions and similarities to these NFL guys? Ryan Freel, but I feel confident that he's not indicative of three quarters of the league. oh sure, I was just pondering if/how much head injuries lead to some of that stuff. That's a tag line, but the story of Seau seems to be that he was banged up, probably had concussions that weren't treated if even noted, and now he's dead. the head in the sand bit with it all might go beyond football being poorly run. I know it's the offseason and christmas, but Freel seems to be a very similar story.