DuWayne Steurer

This is a cool, albeit tough topic. My favorite movies aren't necessarily those that I think 'everyone' should see. There's a good movie, and then there's great movies. Movies that move you, or make you think a long time afterwards about the themes, ideas, and ideals. Movies that, for their genre, stand head and shoulders above the vast majority of 'good' movies out there. THOSE are the type of movies that 'everyone' should see. At least by my definitions and standards. I like Robert's way of breaking it down by genre, but I don't have a concentrated enough thought process to do it that way. Movies that I have seen, that I feel that for one reason or another, are transcendent, and films that ANY fan of that particular genre should draw enjoyment from......... Star Wars (original trilogy ONLY) Serenity Hitchhikers Guide 300 V for Vendetta (WAY different than the book, but still good) Alien Aliens (Everything after this was very standard sci/fi horror in the Alien series) Dances With Wolves Tombstone Silverado The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Once Upon a Time in the West (I love westerns, for the most part) Metropolis Saving Private Ryan (I have a very hard time watching this, but I do watch it. I wouldn't say I 'enjoy' it, but I am compelled by it, none the less) Shawshank Redemption Heat Goodfellas I know I've seen more, but these are the ones that come to mind. YOu know, conversely, there's a few movies I've seen that have absolutely been proclaimed as BRILLIANT or a SPECTACLE, and so I watched them, with high hopes, and came away feeling like.......you know, that was a good film and all, but nothing transcendent. Fight Club Pan's Labyrinth American Beauty. I mean I 'get' them. I do. I understand these films, I just wasn't blown away by them.

Point taken. That said, there is a similar lack of evidence that IRod juiced (outside of perhaps a mention from Canseco). Are we going to be having the same argument about him in 6 or 7 years? 'He was the best A.L. catcher ever', 'no proof', etc..... Does anyone believe that Rodriguez didn't juice after witnessing the transformation that his body made after testing became mandatory? Steroids or not, Bagwell had a nice peak, but his career stats do not scream 'All Time Great' to me. In my view, Dick Allen had a very similar career path, but I think his stats were slightly more impressive due to the era in which he played. Allen recieves no consideration whatsoever, so why should Bagwell be a shoo-in? I didn't say that Bagwell should be a shoo in. Honestly, I WOULD consider a counter argument for him based on the shortness of his career, and the tiny little park he got to play in. That said, I would probably vote yes on him, if given the choice. My issue of contention here is that there ARE writers who are voting no on him, based on absolutely ZERO evidence that the guy has ever juiced. As far as Irod, yes, the guy got smaller. He also got older. it's not that big of a stretch to see a guy lose some mass as he gets a little older. Maybe as his body started giving him a hard time, he decided to slim down and ease some wear and tear on his joints? I find it very difficult to condemn these guys for 'cheating', when it's been done since baseball began. We GLORIFY the cheating that guys used to do 'back in the old days'. Some may argue that steroid use is a different kind of cheating and that it's 'illegal'. Well, we know Molly was blowing coke in the 80's. During games? Maybe. There's lot's of antecdotal evidence and heresay that guys used to 'bump' before games all the time in that era. Is that any less cheating? We're not keeping THOSE guys out of the hall are we? What they were doing (coke) is CLEARLY illegal. There's been talk that Hank Aaron himself used to pop greenies. Mickey Mantle. Those guys are in. Hypocrisy at its finest. But that's never stopped baseball before. And I doubt it ever will.

What an absolute joke. Blyleven, Dawson, and others are turning it into the "Hall of Pretty Good", and guys who's numbers stand among the all time greats are excluded. The entire system needs to be worked. As it stands now, this is about as legitimate as the gold glove voting. Perry. Cheating. Knew he cheated. He knew we knew. This is ok. Bagwell has never been linked to steroids in any way, shape, or form, other than "he got really big" and he's a cheater. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I got a boatload of games over the last 2 months that I haven't been able to get into completely, but here's my initial thoughts on some. COD Black Ops. I honestly would love to know what all the hype is about. My SOCOM group all got into this, so to stay with the guys, I went and got this. The single player game was really cool, and worth playing through at least once, but it's pretty short (5 hours maybe). The online stuff.........honestly? Meh. I've played CoD, Battlefield, Socom, etc, and this doesn't stick out in any way, other than the customizing of the weapons a bit. But honestly, the online gameplay falls really flat for me, to go with the fact that their servers SUCK. Our group constantly gets split. We're constantly losing guys out of the match. Matchmaking and group management interfaces really just aren't as good as they should be. The action is way more 'arcadey' than I'd like. Honestly, after playing MAG and CoD for about 10 hours each, I'd really prefer and recommend MAG. As it is, I'd rate CoD twice. Single player 9.5/10. Multi Player 7/10. EA MMA is ok. The biggest thing that holds it back is the rosters. There's just not many compelling fighters on this if you're an MMA fan. Most of the talent has been sucked into the UFC, and it shows in this game. The gameplay itself is solid, but just like the UFC games, doing 20-30 minutes worth of training gameplay between each fight is just not compelling or fun in any way. Realistic? Sure. I don't care if my game is realistic if it's not fun. The fighting and character customization is fun, the online stuff is pretty cool. Overall, I'd give it a 7.5/10 AC Brotherhood. If you liked 1 or 2, just go buy Brotherhood. Now. 10/10

I have a friend who's in prison right now. He lives (and was charged with DUI) in Wisconsin. NINE DUI's. NINE. And he was still out of jail, and able to get in a car and kill a father, mother, and their child while driving under the influence. His sentence? 25 years. I was told that he hopes he never gets let out, or he dies in prison. NINE DUI's, and the guy was still able to get behind the wheel of a car and end three lives.

If I had to guess, I'd say Gamel + a MLB reliever or MLB ready reliever.

Well, there has to be an external option for OF in 2012. Hart's not good in RF, and at the very least, he'd be a better target for the infielders than Fielder. I'm not sold on Gamel, and clearly the organization isn't either.

Hart could replace Prince. I mention Gamel because there's apparent interest in him from the Ray's perspective, and we really don't seem to have any plan in mind to get the guy playing time.

I know he had been involved in the Garza trade talks, which we certainly won't be pursuing at this point, but I wonder if something isn't still possible there. We know the Rays wanted Gamel as a 1B option, so I wonder if a deal centered around Gamel and maybe a young reliever would interest the Rays. Even 2009-2010 BJ Upton is better than Gomez by far, and 2007/2008 BJ Upton would be outstanding.

I don't know whether to be sick, or elated. We gave up a LOT. I can't help but feel like Melvin is sacrificing the future to win in 2011 to save his job. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely STOKED about getting Greinke, but Melvin gutted the top prospects in this organization to get 2 pitchers and one TERRIBLE, overpaid shortstop. Melvin's putting all his eggs in the 2011 basket, and I hope to heck he's right about this year.

Really really want to see this movie. And Tron. I guess it will be a very Jeff Bridges holiday season for me.

Yeah, I'm gonna take this one in. Gotta lot of friends that fight in Madison and Racine, and Pettis' name is definitely on the radar.

Have you played Fallout 3? Then you've played New Vegas.

I did the single player COD black ops campaign in about 5 hours in 2 nights. Great campaign, but the multiplayer doesn't do anything for me at all. Bleah.

Guys like Crawford who steal a lot of bases often get the "EXCITING TO WATCH" tag applied to them, and (yes, I'm gonna knock the casual fan a bit) to the casual fan, exciting is the same as elite. Crawford runs fast in the field, steals bases, and hits lots of triples. Those things are exciting. "Exciting" ballplayers tend to have their value overestimated. This isn't to suggest that Crawford's not a very good player, as he is. However, if he took an occasional walk (sarcasm there), his value would be much higher. A career .337 OBP just isn't good, and NO player who's got an 'elite' tag should have an OBP that low. When Crawford loses a step, or doesn't hit .300, he's going to be a subpar player. At his age, a contract of 7-8 years would be an instant turn off for me.

Wow. That's a lot of cash for a guy that's marginally better (and older) than Corey Hart. Wow. What? Oh yeah. Wow.

I loved listening to the rare inning when Hughes was away doing something else, and Santo was handling play by play by himself. You'd hear a crack of a bat, and then something along the lines of ".........uh......CAUGHT in uh.........right field by......Sosa? Yeah. Sosa." I digress. The guy has belonged in the HOF for a good long while. It sucks that if and when he makes it, he won't be able to cherish the moment.

Perry definitely doctored the ball (as did most likely Don Sutton and several others), but I don't think that's the same as utilizing a substance that increases your strength and muscle mass and improves your bat speed. In my opinion, none of the guys who have admitted and/or tested positive for steroids should even be on the ballot. How can they be when Pete Rose is not?Isn't cheating, cheating, regardless of degree? Doctoring the ball was blatantly illegal, and these guys did it. How is that *more* illegal than using a banned substance? (Something McGwire has never been found GUILTY of?)

MNBrew brings up a great point. We know Gaylord Perry cheated and is in the hall of fame. McGwire was never 'caught', but he gets hardly a whimper of support. My ballot. Raines McGwire. Palmeiro Alomar Parker (If Dawson and Rice are in, doesn't Parker HAVE to be?)

It's snowing and sticking, I have pneumonia, and my snowblower won't start. Wisconsin's winter weather can kiss my butt.

MLB contracts are not allowed to have performance based clauses based on statistical milestones other than games or at-bats, correct? I'm talking about saying "you get a $300,000 bonus if you hit .325" type stuff. I'm almost positive this is correct, but can't find a link or source anywhere online.

Speaking of Parker, I don't get why he never gets any mentions. Not like he had a mediocre career or anything.You can put Parker's numbers right next to Andre Dawsons and Jim Rice's numbers, and wonder "hmmm.........now why are 2 of these guys in, and one not?"

Allen has a strong case. Dude was a BEAST who didn't put up huge counting stats. The Hall is VERY inconsistent when you look at players, and try to apply standards. Bob Johnson is out.......(.899 OPS, 138 OPS+, 2,051 hits, 288 homers) Chick Hafey is in..........(.898 OPS, 133 OPS+, 1,466 hits, 164 homers). And they played the same position, in the same era. Color me confused. For some guys, if they didn't have the counting stats, they're not getting in. Some guys put up huge numbers over a short span, and they made it. (Hack Wilson). Inconsistent standards.

I would include Simmons, Oliver, Staub, perhaps Concepcion.

I got to meet Sparky very briefly in the mid 80's at Detroit once. Despite having that 'grouchy old man' appearance, he was very approachable and friendly. RIP Sparky.