With the trading deadline looming at the end of the month, every baseball fan is naturally buzzing over who their team might acquire or unload. I'm going to look one step further today, and talk about high-profile guys who may be on the move between now and NEXT year's deadline.
The first is Grady Sizemore. I've never been a huge fan of him; the media is trumpeting him as an up-and-coming star, and his best year WAS last year (.268-33 HR-90 RBI-38 SB), but nothing about him says "sure-fire star." He's gone from .290 in 2006 to .277 in '07, .268 last year, and so far this year, a less-than-impressive .230. 30-30 ability is attractive, though, and one would think his RBI's would go through the roof on a good team. The Indians have unloaded major stars in each of the past two seasons, and may consider getting rid of Sizemore if a team offers a number of solid prospects, as they're clearly in no shape to contend right now.
Moving westward, San Diego has REALLY struggled this year, with a 39-62 record as of this writing. They've been hesitant to deal Jake Peavy, but one guy bound to get attention is first baseman Adrian Gonzalez. He's a tremendous power hitter, even in spacious Petco Park. His homer and RBI totals have increased each of the past three full seasons (24-82, 30-100, 36-119), and with 27 dingers to date in 2009, 40 is well within reach. This would be akin to hitting close to 50 somewhere else, and to top it all off, his batting eye has improved, as he leads the league in walks with 79. At age 27, his best years could very well be in front of him, and he may want to spend them on a bonafide contender rather than the otherwise-punchless Padres.
The final target of examination is Brandon Phillips, the second baseman for the floundering Cincinnati Reds. You generally don't expect too much offense out of second sackers, but Phillips has established himself as a 25 HR-25 SB guy, and he won a Gold Glove last year to boot. His batting average is just that, average, but his strikeouts have decreased in recent years (109 in '07, 93 in '08, 41 so far this year), and he's got a great chance to record his first-ever 100-RBI season here in 2009. He's a great piece for a contender to utilize, and the Reds are nowhere near that level right now.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Another chick-flick review: The Ugly Truth
Yep, saw the new Gerard Butler-Katherine Heigl film today. It did pretty well at the box office, grossing $27 million, but was it actually worth seeing? The answer: Sort of.
Firstly, I'm sort of a mark for Butler. Any actor who can go from starring in one of the most manly, blood-and-guts movies ever made (300) to being a respected comedy lead fairly seamlessly, as he did, deserves a ton of respect, and I don't think he's gotten it. He plays the role of "regular douchebag" well in this movie, despite plot twists you can see coming from miles away.
The rest of the movie? Eh. I've never been a big Heigl fan. Yes, she's pretty, but it wasn't an accident that she went from "the next big thing" just a few years ago to "just another pretty actress" now. She was passable, but hardly outstanding. The supporting cast was fine as well; no stand-out, show-stealing performances, but nobody really took away from it with bad ones, either.
The main beef I have with it is the same beef I have with 90% of romantic comedies ever made. You know the plot from the previews, and you know EXACTLY how it's going to shake out because they all end the exact same way. If the ride from the beginning you know until the end any dimwit can figure out is engaging without being too over-the-top, the movie generally isn't repulsive. Those that can pull it off compare favorably, and those that don't disappear after a short time.
This one falls in the middle. Yes, you check your disbelief at the door with romantic comedies, but there were times where I said to myself (and the wife), "This is stupid." Some of the stuff they try does work (Butler and Heigl have decent chemistry together, so they can pull off stuff other on-screen couples can't); others, like the old vibrating-underwear-at-dinner trick, fall flat.
The verdict: As chick flicks go, you've seen worse. Butler is funny, the rest of the cast is passable, and the 96-minute plot is a bit of a roller coaster with holes that will annoy you at some point. It's certainly better than The Proposal (thank goodness) despite its inconsistencies, and it's generally watchable. RATING: **1/2
Firstly, I'm sort of a mark for Butler. Any actor who can go from starring in one of the most manly, blood-and-guts movies ever made (300) to being a respected comedy lead fairly seamlessly, as he did, deserves a ton of respect, and I don't think he's gotten it. He plays the role of "regular douchebag" well in this movie, despite plot twists you can see coming from miles away.
The rest of the movie? Eh. I've never been a big Heigl fan. Yes, she's pretty, but it wasn't an accident that she went from "the next big thing" just a few years ago to "just another pretty actress" now. She was passable, but hardly outstanding. The supporting cast was fine as well; no stand-out, show-stealing performances, but nobody really took away from it with bad ones, either.
The main beef I have with it is the same beef I have with 90% of romantic comedies ever made. You know the plot from the previews, and you know EXACTLY how it's going to shake out because they all end the exact same way. If the ride from the beginning you know until the end any dimwit can figure out is engaging without being too over-the-top, the movie generally isn't repulsive. Those that can pull it off compare favorably, and those that don't disappear after a short time.
This one falls in the middle. Yes, you check your disbelief at the door with romantic comedies, but there were times where I said to myself (and the wife), "This is stupid." Some of the stuff they try does work (Butler and Heigl have decent chemistry together, so they can pull off stuff other on-screen couples can't); others, like the old vibrating-underwear-at-dinner trick, fall flat.
The verdict: As chick flicks go, you've seen worse. Butler is funny, the rest of the cast is passable, and the 96-minute plot is a bit of a roller coaster with holes that will annoy you at some point. It's certainly better than The Proposal (thank goodness) despite its inconsistencies, and it's generally watchable. RATING: **1/2
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A few quick blurbs and a movie review
1) Ever have a run of luck at cards where you seem to have the second-best hand EVERY hand you play? That's been me lately. Between a bad live session at Turning Stone a few weeks ago and several terrible online beats (KK losing to AJ, all-in preflop, after the board comes 7-8-9-10 in succession, KK losing to J8 after a terrible pre-flop call is rewarded with a J-8-3 flop, etc.), I've had enough happen to me to where I've taken a break for the past week.
The grand mal bad beat, though, came this week at the WSOP main event. Three players went all-in on one of the Day 2 sessions; one guy had AA, two others had the four kings in the deck. Naturally, one of the KK holders rivers a flush, thereby knocking the guy holding pocket rockets out of the world's biggest tournament. My stretch was enough to make me take a break; that would be enough to make me consider giving up poker and taking up backgammon.
2) Anyone catch Brock Lesnar's post-fight antics at UFC 100? Personally, I see no reason for Dana White to have gotten as angry as he did. Think about it; Lesnar was showing how marketable he could be as a guy people would pay to see, given the proper build-up for his opponent. With Lesnar building himself as God's gift to MMA and behaving as such, all it takes is a properly-built guy the fans can rally behind. Give him an undercard, and suddenly, bam, instant record buyrates.
3) So the wife and I went to see "I Love You, Beth Cooper" today. Following the lousy choice of "The Proposal" last week, we went with something she wanted to see and something I wasn't completely opposed to. The movie hasn't been advertised that well, despite the presence of "Heroes" star Hayden Panettiere. With that said, though, it's not a bad movie.
You see most of the plot in the ads that ARE out there. The class valedictorian, played by relative no-name Paul Rust, declares his love for the All-American girl in his class that never gave him the time of day. She gives him a chance, and everything spirals out of control.
What you DON'T see in the previews is key. For starters, remember "Ferris Bueller's Day Off?" The guy who played Cameron plays Rust's dad, an outwardly-normal, somewhat-introverted guy just waiting to explode. Nice homage, huh? Not everything works that well, though; the first 20 minutes or so are pretty awkward, and not in the funny kind of way. Fortunately, things pick up, and it turns into a fun, yet not always consistent, teen movie.
The movie itself is a throwback to adventurous 80's teen comedies. Panettiere is no Molly Ringwald, and Rust is no Anthony Michael Hall, but they work through the initial suck and bring out a watchable, occasionally-funny movie. Is it worth an expensive outing to the movies with comedies that are better at what they do? Maybe not, if this genre isn't what you're into. However, if you can squeeze in a matinee trip and don't mind seeing Panettiere in a quasi-nude scene, you shouldn't be too disappointed. RATING: **1/2
The grand mal bad beat, though, came this week at the WSOP main event. Three players went all-in on one of the Day 2 sessions; one guy had AA, two others had the four kings in the deck. Naturally, one of the KK holders rivers a flush, thereby knocking the guy holding pocket rockets out of the world's biggest tournament. My stretch was enough to make me take a break; that would be enough to make me consider giving up poker and taking up backgammon.
2) Anyone catch Brock Lesnar's post-fight antics at UFC 100? Personally, I see no reason for Dana White to have gotten as angry as he did. Think about it; Lesnar was showing how marketable he could be as a guy people would pay to see, given the proper build-up for his opponent. With Lesnar building himself as God's gift to MMA and behaving as such, all it takes is a properly-built guy the fans can rally behind. Give him an undercard, and suddenly, bam, instant record buyrates.
3) So the wife and I went to see "I Love You, Beth Cooper" today. Following the lousy choice of "The Proposal" last week, we went with something she wanted to see and something I wasn't completely opposed to. The movie hasn't been advertised that well, despite the presence of "Heroes" star Hayden Panettiere. With that said, though, it's not a bad movie.
You see most of the plot in the ads that ARE out there. The class valedictorian, played by relative no-name Paul Rust, declares his love for the All-American girl in his class that never gave him the time of day. She gives him a chance, and everything spirals out of control.
What you DON'T see in the previews is key. For starters, remember "Ferris Bueller's Day Off?" The guy who played Cameron plays Rust's dad, an outwardly-normal, somewhat-introverted guy just waiting to explode. Nice homage, huh? Not everything works that well, though; the first 20 minutes or so are pretty awkward, and not in the funny kind of way. Fortunately, things pick up, and it turns into a fun, yet not always consistent, teen movie.
The movie itself is a throwback to adventurous 80's teen comedies. Panettiere is no Molly Ringwald, and Rust is no Anthony Michael Hall, but they work through the initial suck and bring out a watchable, occasionally-funny movie. Is it worth an expensive outing to the movies with comedies that are better at what they do? Maybe not, if this genre isn't what you're into. However, if you can squeeze in a matinee trip and don't mind seeing Panettiere in a quasi-nude scene, you shouldn't be too disappointed. RATING: **1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
