Doop for Sebastien Le Toux

Today Philadelphia Union announced that they traded Sebastien Le Toux to the Vancouver Whitecaps FC.

Excuse me for a moment while I bang angrily on my keyboard...

ARG!!!kgbk;d;kfmkbgkl;dfpoiopuig,lKLkKALaklvbmbv c ./gfdnl;,dcv?> ,. /m,b /m, b,.vb,@#%^&*()(W@Q%^&^%$) GIANTSQUIDOFANGER!1lk1opcGrrrkvbl;v''f

DFJIFR*^*(YTGOYT%^*Ik,.;! > >:[]

Ahem.

Philadelphia Union has traded Sebastien Le Toux to the Vancouver Whitecaps FC in exchange for allocation money. To paraphrase Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [player], there's only [one] of [him] in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy?"

Well the people behind this deal are. Nick Sakiewicz, Union CEO and operating partner, (who has a history of screwing over MLS teams, from what I gather from comments from a NY Red Bulls fan) says, "We ... believe the moves we have made and continue to make improve our roster and give us a better chance to advance past the semifinals" of the MLS playoffs. Yeah? WITHOUT the one and only player who played every single minute of every single game in the 2011 season? Yeah? Why'd you play him so much if you think you can do better without him, huh?

Le Toux is a hard worker. He never quits for those 90 minutes and he gives the proverbial one hundred and ten percent, chasing down balls anyone else would've given up on. Plus, he seems like a classy, genuinely nice guy (not that I've had the privilege to meet him, but I've heard he takes time for fans after games). He's never gotten carded. Let me say that again: He has never received a yellow card or a red card in his MLS career. Not one. And need I remind you he played the entire season last year? That's a lot of time on the pitch, so I'm sure he had plenty of opportunities. Also, he doesn't dive. Dives are the last resort of losers who can't win any other way. Le Toux plays the game the way it should be played, without reckless fouls or trying to trick refs. He won the MLS Individual Fair Play award both years he played for Philadelphia Union. He was voted to the MLS Best XI and was named Philadelphia’s first-ever All-Star selection in 2010. He scored 14 goals and had 11 assists for Philadelphia Union in 2010, and had 11 goals and 9 assists in 2011. He got a hat trick in Union's inaugural home game, for crying out loud! What part of these stats makes you think, "Meh. Ditch him"?!

There are some people out there saying that Le Toux is just one guy and we need to think about the team as a whole and that Philadelphia Union is more than just individual players and that we aren't being "real fans" of the team by being so upset about Le Toux. But Le Toux was the face of the team! And they just ripped it off and tossed it away. They want to "reinvest in our youth" and with the 30 pieces of silver they got for Sebastien, Union can afford to keep Roger Torres. Yes, I am a fan of Torres, and I'd like to keep him, but not at the expense of Le Toux! If Torres is so essential to the Union, why didn't you start him more? He's played 1,889 minutes, which, if I'm doing the math right, equals a whopping three full games. Are you kidding me? [CORRECTION: I'm not. It's actually 21. I misplaced my decimal. Shoulda known better than to try to do long division at 2 AM without a calculator. *Puts Bag of Shame on head*]

Manager Peter Nowak said “We have a very good foundation with youth pieces here. We want to keep the group intact and we think this [decision] will make them even stronger."

I can't say it better than a fan who commented, "Keep the team intact? Build a good foundation? Sebastien Le Toux was this team's foundation. No amount of allocation money is worth selling off the heart of the franchise."

Another commenter said "A team that makes it into the playoffs needs to be improved to get further, not ripped apart and sold for scrap as if it were in a rebuilding phase." How about instead of getting rid of your striker, you give him a little bit more help up front once in a while? So much was on Le Toux to score this season. I don't understand how they can go from depending on him to not needing him at all.

The really heart-breaking part is that Sebastien likes living in Philly and playing for the Union. He tweeted that today was the saddest day for him. He didn't want to go to stinking Vancouver. (I know what that's like--I was pissed off when Genuardi's transferred me to Audubon when I intended to work at Kimberton.) And the fans don't want Le Toux to go either.

So, with our leading scorer gone, that really messes up our offense, and as a bonus our defense took a hard hit too, since Faryd Mondragon chose to return to Columbia. I can respect that he wants to play for his home, but it's still very sad to see him go. He has a lot of experience as a keeper, and was Union's captain, so it's going to be hard to fill his cleats as well. Mondragon and Le Toux were my two favorite members, they were the leaders of the team, and they were the only two all-stars in Philadelphia Union's history, and we lost them both within 24 hours.

It is a very sad day to be a Son of Ben. We will miss you, #9.

The Whitecaps better freaking play him. The next time Philadelphia plays Vancouver, if Le Toux scores a goal against us, I will doop for him.

Read It 2nd

I recently bought The City of Ember, Inkheart, and Eragon, all of which I'd seen as movies but hadn't read the books (mostly because I didn't know they were books).

Hank Green (of Vlogbrothers on YouTube) has started a movement to "Read It First," which I think is to prevent you from watching the movie, thinking it's crap, and never reading the book because you didn't like the movie. Example: Eragon. I think we can all agree that the movie was disappointing, including for people who didn't have any preconceived expectations from reading the book. As they say in the movie, "I was expecting...more."

Hank's website, readit1st.com, states "Don't let the movie ruin the book." I suppose part of Hank's reasons include trying to get people to read more. I am not one of those people who need to be encouraged to read more. I am not one of those people who will watch a movie and do their book report on that to get out of actually reading a book. And you, who took the time to read this blog, are probably not one of those people. Probably because we're nerds. But so is Nerdfighteria, the audience to whom Hank addressed this issue.

While Hank may have some valid reasons to advocate reading before watching, I feel the opposite. Here's my argument to watch it 1st, read it 2nd:

1) Watching it first gives you an idea of whether you'd want to read the book. You meet the characters, find out the plot, see if it's something that interests you. I don't know about you, but the two hours it takes to watch a movie is way less of a time commitment than what it takes to read a book. (The people who cop out on book reports know what I'm talking about.)

2) You may not have known it was a book. I've often watched the credits of something and been surprised it was a book. And I read all the time and worked in a library, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with books. Example: When I started watching Legend of the Seeker on TV, which is exactly the sort of fantasy/adventure stuff I like, the show credits said it was based on the book Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. Since I'd already determined I liked the story (see reason #1), it was a safe bet that I'd enjoy the books as well. (And I did.)

Also, a film will credit the book it was based on, but a book won't necessarily advertise that there's a movie too, so you might not be aware that you can continue the fun. Conveniently, readit1st.com allows you to sign up for the READ IT 1st newsletter to keep up to date on adaptations about to hit theaters. In a rather accomodating move, you can do that whether you pledge to read the book first or whenever you please.

3) Here's the biggie: The Changes. If you watch it first then you have an image of what the characters and locations look like to help you when you read the book, instead of being annoyed that the movie sets and actors don't match what you imagined or what the book described.

Sometimes books repeatedly mention a detail that is changed for the film. For example, Kahlan Amnell and Harry Potter are both frequently described as having green eyes, but the actors who play them have blue eyes. If you've read the books and had it drummed into your head that they have green eyes, it's going to bug you when you watch it and they don't. If you're reading it second you may not even remember the color of the actor's eyes, or else it's easier to say "Oh well, close enough."

If you're watching it first, you don't know what's been left out or changed. You're not distracted from the movie because you're making comparisons. It's less annoying to read a book and think "Oh, this is new" than to expect it to be completely faithful to the book and go a certain way.

Example: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Fans of the book were all "They skipped Tom Bombadil" and "Arwen's part is not supposed to be this big" and "Elijah Wood is too young to play Frodo," whereas I, who hadn't read the book yet, could just enjoy how awesome and epic and life changing the movie was.

The quote from Eragon is actually kinda pretty much my thesis not to read it first: You expect more than you would if you hadn't read it yet. As everyone know, the book is always better. So don't you want to save the best for last?