Ceetar

5 pitch domination by Pelfrey. 1-2-3 7th.

btw, I referenced this thread/count in my Hofstra speech.

themetfairy wrote: I'll be there. wise move for Fox games.

I was talking more about the quality of the story than the actual feasibility. Not that I think i accept "That probably won't work" as excuses not to do things. Besides, isn't Cap alive again? on the Avengers, probably seeing that Sunday morning. Saw Captain America the other night. Not that I think there was any real 'need' to see that or risk being lost. I knew he fought Nazis and was part of the Super Soldier program. I don't really like how they progressed to modern times, but whatever.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: FACEBOOK PRO TIP: Even the most ostensibly good-humored FB-friends-who-happen-to-be-MFY-fans don't seem to take kindly to one's suggestions that Rivera's injury might be due to something he did that displeased his God. try telling them don't worry the HGH will have him back soon. That'll cheer them up.

well, it already did make a video game.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel:_Ultimate_Alliance_2 And it was a lot of fun. But I guess that's a growing trend, video games have the graphics and cut scenes to rival movies anyway. Plus they last way longer than 2 hours, AND you get to play along. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done well though. Make it two movies. develop the characters, cut some out. Play side stories on national TV to enrich the characters for those interested.

Frayed Knot wrote: Bottom line is that losing Rivera, as valuable as he is by himself, hurts more because it's another brick in the cumulative set of problems the Yanqui staff has going on. Right. I haven't paid a ton of attention but I don't think the back end of that bullpen is particularly good. Robertson was arguably better than Rivera over the last years or so, despite the whole 'proven closer' thing. I'm looking forward to the panic involved over that idea and if Robertson dares to have a shaky outing soon (which he's probably due for too since no one's perfect).

Edgy DC wrote: Bobby wasn't looking so super-solvent at divorce time two years ago. Granted, a story fed to the New York Post by an ex-wife and her lawyer = not the most balanced sourcing. well, it's the Post..balance? hah.. the payments hadn't kicked in yet two years ago right? Awfully convenient timing for a divorce isn't it?

I've actually been looking forward to this for a while. Now despite the Yankees having relievers just as effective over the last couple of years, they get to panic and judge and hate their closer and call for his head when he blows the first one.

Vic Sage wrote: no it wasn't and no it wouldn't. okay... come on, an epic battle between Captain America and Iron Man seems like just what people want to see. It's like Super Smash Brothers or maybe more appropriately, Marvel vs. Capcom

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, you have.. ? drawn conclusions. I'm not sure what you think i've concluded since there really isn't anything to conclude.. I don't really have a hard line opinion on eminent domain.

Edgy DC wrote: You ask, but you've already drawn your conclusions no matter which way I respond. I don't know how this keeps turning on the presumed character of the owners and operators of the Iron Triangle. well, you have..

Mariano with some knee strain. nothing a dose of HGH doesn't solve I imagine.

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar again embraces political discourse. I don't assume anything. I'm sure they're driving as hard a bargain as they can get. My objection is to existence of the eminent domain right at all --- which compromises the bargaining position by it's nature. I also object to their position being compromised by the city's deliberate neglect of the area, and that neglect being definitively held against the property owners. guess I have no willpower here either. I probably should just stop, but hey, I've had a beer or three.. I ask this totally without judgement, but do you think the neglect of the area was _deliberate_? What would've prompted that? Why would they city decide "eh, they don't need roads paved or traffic signs.." Did they used to maintain it, back in say 65, and stop? Is that neglect being held against the owners? Because it seems like they're just as much twisted it to their advantage too. Using that neglect as evidence of a specific vendetta against them. But I imagine city oversight leads to parking laws, opposite side of the street parking, street sweeping (all evident on the other side of Shea/Citi where the roads are also not great) maybe even parking meters and what not. Does not having those things benefit the shops who leave cars parked wherever for however long they feel like? Basically treating the streets as an extension of the parking lot? It's pretty obvious that if those roads were normal city roads Mets fans AND commuters would park on those streets all the time.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Why are we assuming that chop shop people won't get a fair price? And what is a fair price for a corrugated metal shack on dirt with wild dogs and used car parts of questionable origin? Are the chop shop people being unreasonable? It's hard to imagine that they haven't been offered money in the past. Do they have unrealistic expectations of how much they can get for those lots? I think they're being stubborn. Dunno if that's right or wrong, but i'm not sure what their end game is. I suspect a mall and regular traffic in the area won't favor them (which is why they're bitching about it I guess)

Edgy DC wrote: It's disappointing to me. And nobody was yelling. And you sure had enough of a enough of a taste for political debate when it involved the Catholic Church. was talking in general, not about this issue. yes, sometimes something piques my interest. I usually regret getting involved. I was including myself in the insisting one's world view is the 'correct' world view. I think eminent domain has a place, and I'm not sold on this not being one of them. I don't believe that the business owners are completely innocent in the whole 'the city never takes care of us!' angle and suspect they've enjoyed that freedom whether it be the ability to treat the streets like a parking lot or something else.

Edgy DC wrote: That's disappointing. Funny how this is reported at the exact same time as the city is withdrawing the E.D. card. Right, that's what I asked above. Where are they building this? Did they get enough via E.D. or is this somehow undeveloped City land? or what? and I don't think it's disappointing that I don't find political debates interesting. I tend to find them full of too much yelling and insisting that one's world view is better than another.

I like the conversation more along the lines of what it's going to do for me personally. a Mets Mall. Bars, restaurants. a great place to watch out of town games after the Mets game to see how the division races are going. etc.

it was a great story. It'd play very well on the big screen too.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, just because something is legal that doesn't mean it can't be abused. I'll bet that a lot of the people who support the use of eminent domain at Willets Point are also the same people who are vehemently opposed to big government and its interference with small business. political hypocrisy? well, that'd be a first.

I mean, their were quotes about the sellers being happy with it. But sure. of course, eminent domain IS legal, no matter what your political stance is on it.

okay, hang on a bit. For one, they withdrew the ED thing. So does this mean the City already has the land required for the mall? Is this article basically residents bitching that they don't like what's going up next door? well too bad! But who knows, maybe the roads get fixed if the city's building a mall nearby. And sidewalks too probably. And maybe they'll start ticketing those cars you leave everywhere, and install parking meters...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd also rather see something nicer in that spot, but I'd prefer to see the current landowners made an offer that they won't want to refuse, rather than an offer that they're legally required to not refuse. which as I understand it has been the case so far. There was a blog about it with links but it's gone.

I'd only question why if it's so highly susceptible to corruption, why hasn't it happened yet. Even this report says it's not official. The desire to take over that area has been there for a while. I remember eminent domain abuse signs up there back before Citi Field was even done. And I know the plan to develop the area goes back further than that. I have very very little sympathy for the shop owners there amongst the wild dogs and whatever rackets they're running.

Edgy DC wrote: You know, if a game started by Roy Halladay can lead to 15 runs allowed including a 6-0 lead yielded by Halladay, that's real good news. He's the key to this whole division. Well, if he's going to make a habit of blowing 6-0 leads, Tim Hudson might become the key to the whole division.