Ceetar

TransMonk wrote: IMO, Franco and Hathaway were making jokes between themselves. The overall writing was stiff. Hathaway flubbed several lines and ad-libbed her goofs. Franco seemed like he really didn't care if he was there or not. The exchanges between Timberlake and Kunis made several references to one of the documentary nominees that no one got. Kirk Douglas went on WAY to long. Hathaway gushed over to many of the presenters and blew too many kisses. The whole production seemed unprofessional. I enjoyed the opening scenes and I liked the way the screen was set up. There were a couple of audience-at-home jokes that got a laugh. Whoever it was that read the short-films nominees made a reference to at-home ballots and Hathaway joked about a/the drinking game. The auto-tune thing may have been a little too MTVish, but everyone at the party i was at laughed. I thought the Charlie Scheen joke was topical. I think what passed as 'professional' is changing. Maybe it was a little bland/nondescript but I didn't get 'horrible'. (although I did find it annoying that every other person in my Twitter feed felt it necessary to mock and/or joke about how they weren't watching it. )

TransMonk wrote: Not for nothing, but I'll be a lot happier about our outfield situation when the words "Beltran" and "hobbled" stop appearing in articles together. That'd be nice. I don't expect it though. He might not actually _be_ hobbled, but the articles will still mention that everytime he flubs something,takes a day off, or plays DH in Interleague/World Series.

TransMonk wrote: It was just about the worst Oscar show ever. Yup. I'm always amazed that it takes 3+ hours to do what could easily be done in one. Hathaway + Franco = horrible. It was a night of hosts and presenters constantly upstaging one another. I like/liked Hathaway. I guess they weren't great or anything,but I wouldn't say horrible. (the 3+ hour thing is another story, plus why'd it start at 8:30..usually 8 right?) Isn't the hosts and presenters upstaging each other just how things are done these days? Not saying it's "as good" as previous shows (And certainly could be generational, I'm not exactly old enough to have a read standard of judgement), but I didn't think it was bad. Kanye West certainly wasn't unusual, he was just just extreme. Maybe I just don't have high expectations, I haven't, won't, and don't really want to see most of the movies nominated. (What I took away from the show/party i was at was that i should see the Fighter and the Social Network wasn't as boring as I expect it to be) So the 'best' awards don't really reflect what I'm looking for in a movie anyway. What was it that was so bad about the hosts/show? just the oneupmanship? o

Vic Sage wrote: congrats on your clean sweep, but that night was hardly "perfect". It was just about the worst Oscar show ever. Seemed fine to me. But I dunno how to judge these things. Maybe I just don't expect much.

Gwreck wrote: Adam Rubin expects Beltran to announce today that he will be playing right field. supposedly initiated and suggested by Beltran himself. how selfish of him.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: From the NYT: "Moreover, the one potential bright spot � the start of games at Citi Field, the selling of tickets, the sale of hot dogs and beer � appears clouded as well. One person close to the team said that advance ticket sales for the 2011 season were going so poorly that a sense of panic had begun to take hold in the team�s front office." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/sports/baseball/27wilpon.html?src=twrhp "one person close to the team" is fine. Maybe they are. I've heard executives, who put their games to it, say that the tickets sales _aren't_ bad. We'll see, because 90% of it is based off the play on the field, that looks to be better. Sure, lower presales are expected given the state of things this offseason, and could also affect cash flow problems (Like how they introduced more deferred payment plans for season ticket holders in November. Hey! I bet if they didn't do that, they wouldn't have need the loan. ) Also, I'm not concerned with releasing part-time phone answers in this day and age. I'm sure the new boss realized that the Internet is the way to go, and they were basically a waste of money.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: If they trade Reyes, no one will be at the park in August anyway to get the poster. It's looking like nobody might be at the park even if they keep Reyes. A couple of people have reported that they're doing "not bad" with ticket sales. Doubt they're going to sell 3.5 million of 'em, but I'd guess July-early August is probably one of the higher attendance periods regardless.

MFS62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Somebody on the radio this morning pointed out that the Mets are holding Latin Appreciation/Jose Reyes Poster Night on August 6th ... one week After the trading deadline. That could get awkward. You're right. But then again this is the team that saluted Mike Jacobs on Jewish Heritage night, then learned he isn't Jewish. I don't think the rest of the front office will hold off on making a trade because a promotional event has been scheduled. Nor do I think the promotional department checks in with the front office when scheduling an event. Later That was the Marlins with Jacobs. If they trade Reyes, no one will be at the park in August anyway to get the poster.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Alderson's comment might be true. But I tend to ignore it and give it zero weight because Sandy would've made the same comment even if he knew it to be false. The most credible comments are those made against one's interests. Who's making comments against one's own interests? Couldn't it be that comments made against one's own interests are simply comments to which the observer doesn't recognize or know the speakers interests? Doesn't this basically mean no one would be believed if they were speaking honestly in their own favor? Maybe if Alderson spoke out and said they were cash strapped, he could falsely claim in a trade "Nope, I can't possibly give you any more than that. We're broke." and maybe negotiate down the price.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). If you truly believe that, then it's mostly time to put this story behind us. Alderson asserts that has had no affect, won't likely have an affect this year, and he doesn't see it becoming an issue in the future. At least as far as the actual team and signing players goes.

BASEBALL ON MY TV!

metirish wrote: Ceetar and Rubin in Duffy's parking lot in ten minutes, fight on. I won't be down there for three weeks. I'll find him though. I'll pretend to be Saul Katz and offer him a job or something.

The Second Spitter wrote: Ceetar wrote: I find Adam Rubin, among others, telling me that the Wilpons will have to sell pretty condescending actually. I'm singling out Adam because I heard an interview with him most recently. . You know, to an impartial observer it would appear that you're harbouring some sort of irrational, hate-filled vendetta against Adam Rubin. fair enough. I'm not sure i'd classify it as a vendetta. I started out neutral, I started reading his stuff, followed him on Twitter...and then gradually lost more and more respect for him and saw more and more negative and pessimistic things show up in his opinion pieces and interviews. It's merely my opinion, but it's based on my observations. I don't harbor a grudge or think he did anything wrong, I just find his work distasteful and not worth reading. At least his opinion pieces. when he's reporting news or information he's probably more dedicated and hardworking than many of other guys, but thanks to the information age anything he puts out there gets expanded everywhere in minutes, so I don't have to subject myself to him to get that info.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well of course it's possible that the Wilpons will emerge from this mess somewhat victorious, with their majority ownership interest in the Mets preserved. But you seem to be taking the position that they will, instead of that they might. And you don't want to consider anybody's POV that they might not. A five year old who still believes in Santa Claus is endearing. An adult who still believes in Santa Claus is naive, at the very least. I'm not taking the position that they will, merely that I don't think anyone knows, including the Wilpons though they don't want to admit it yet, what will happen. I find Adam Rubin, among others, telling me that the Wilpons will have to sell pretty condescending actually. I'm singling out Adam because I heard an interview with him most recently. Very very little is clear right now. It seems pretty truthful on the Wilpons part that they _really_ want to retain the Mets and the focus of their financially...juggling...is aimed at that goal. That's the only real position I'm taking. Do you think this is unreasonable? Where It's murky to me is the speculation that them trying to sell 25% of the team is stupid, that there are no buyers and that it wouldn't be enough anyway. I personally find it hard to believe that it wasn't a carefully thought out strategy towards achieving the long term goal of retaining the team. Sure, they don't have a ton of credibility, so maybe this is all a cover towards selling the entire enterprise, but they've been pretty open about wanting the team to remain in the family for generations, even before Madoff was exposed. They could still get blown away by the lawsuit. But this extra loan coming to light, from three months ago, doesn't really change that landscape.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, they might find a $100 million bill behind the Dairy Barn. Anything could happen. on edit: Jeff could hit Powerball. I hope he's not playing Powerball. It's not exactly the best of investment strategies. Not that they have the best record in that regard.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead. Beats me. Who knows? But why predict these loans are going to be called in now, of all times? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the Mets were stabilized, post lawsuit? Or you know, when they have money? Calling them in now could cut the Mets off from the best likelihood of them making money to be able to pay said loans. Whatever happens, the Mets are still going to be here this year, and next year. As will SNY. It brings in revenue. I haven't seen any reports that suggests this might be the case though, besides wild speculation of what could happen. Anything could happen. the Mets could settle and this could be over next week.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. It's not just about Madoff that Rubin is nastily negative and doom and gloom. He's willfully nasty and unprofessional in other things, whether it be trying to get David Wright to say he wishes he wasn't in New York, or hinting at "secret" stories about Backman. How is any of that different than the Mets situation two years ago? Don't most teams carry debt? How much are the Yankees in debt on their stadium? Don't all reports suggest the Mets are expected to repay that 25million shortly? Trying to assert anything with the hazy collection of information we have on the situation is just silly.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. To me this reads as pot, kettle, black. The difference is my posts are viewed as the opinion they are, if Adam Rubin tells Michael Kay something, it's treated as practically fact. So if I say I expect Beltran to stay on the field based on the reports, I may be laughed at, but if he expresses himself in a way that suggests Beltran will be on the DL in May, it's just another example of the "poorly run Mets". I'm not ignorant of anything, anymore than anyone else. But I'm accepting of that ignorance. I know that we know virtually nothing about what's going to happen with the Mets are the lawsuit. In fact, the judge that will ultimately decide the case doesn't know how it's going to go until he's heard the evidence. So why should I take Adam Rubin seriously when he says things like "I don't see any way the Wilpons won't have to sell the team"?

Gwreck wrote: You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million. Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. I don't contradict myself, I'm just suggesting I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation.

wow, it was that long ago? I think it was pretty classic. at the forefront of scary new cloning stuff and new technology and whatnot. (like most of Crithton's stuff actually..)

yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently. Why do we expect them to be full open and honest? So far as I can tell, it hasn't really affected anything yet. I don't think of anyone I would have rather had this offseason that we don't have because of finances. They haven't yet done something stupid like let Reyes walk. It's all lawyer speak and guesses. But if I have to lean towards one side, i'm gonna lead towards the guys that have the most knowledge of their finances (the Wilpons, theoretically) rather than the opposing lawyer or biased "analysts" like Adam Rubin. either way, I don't think the knowledge that they borrowed 25million from MLB changes anything about what will happen with the Mets in the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either. I don't think that's the right way to be thinking about it. Seems to me the Wilpons' issue isn't so much the lawsuit (though that matters) but their debt load. They owe money all over town, man. They've owned the team for how long? and have been businessmen for longer. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else. The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players. A lot more will become known about their ability to _continue_ to pay their players, and acquire new ones, in the future, particularly as the lawsuit details get more clear, but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in.

being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Ceetar wrote: I was just tentatively invited to a Whitecaps game. Come on over! I'll sit with you. You're on your own with a Fifth Third Burger, but one of the snacks is on me. I do see people buying the massive burger. You get a t-shirt if you can finish it. But usually a group of people will buy it and cut it into pieces. A lot of bread. A free t-shirt? ooooh.. I don't see how i can go all the the way to Michigan and not have the burger. Of course, I'll be there with my wife who will probably straighten me out. (I don't have a life insurance policy) I wanted to go to the Mets vs. Tigers, but it's midweek so would be taxing on the vacation allotment.

I was just tentatively invited to a Whitecaps game.