tkeith

I'll plead live recording again. I saw this band two days before this, having never heard of the tenor, and had the chance to have dinner with them and talk extensively with the tenor player at the break. Both his playing and his persona made an impression on me. Turns out, I should have known him anyway. OH! KICKED!!! I have an official man-crush on the tenor player, and my favorite drummer. In fact, my initial idea for a BFT was one that had this drummer on all tracks. Finally got one you liked. Unfortunately, you're wrong on all counts. At least you enjoyed most of it, though! I expected many to get this wrong, but in a different direction. Original tune. The title gets me in a personal spot that I'll make clear when answers are revealed. On this one, I might recommend a re-listen when not cranky -- even while I'll acknowledge creating the mood. I agree about the sound of the date, but this trumpet always knocks me out. Kicked!!!!! We'll see. I hope so! I'm feeling bad about this one now. For the future, I get the message: Shorter or shorter tunes. Thanks for given the ears over.

No apologies, Big Al! Nobody has crankier responses than yours truly. In fact, I still feel bad about the way I kicked Berigan incessantly while listening to #57. Damn! I was really hoping this one would be the stumper and already two have nailed it. Fair enough. It *is* a live recording, though, and is probably the best outing (IMHO) for this well-known tenor. Rawest of the raw blues. I understand your position and respectfully disagree. Another live one. Yeah, this one probably works better in context. There's a fun story that goes with it and I expect this to be the A1 stumper of the BFT. Yeah... I like to put this one on when someone questions the composer's hipness. Not to go Deanna Troy on you, but I'm sensing that you don't care for extended solos. Kicked! The pianist is going to be difficult one for people to name, but I love the arrangement of the tune.

And don't forget, the trading deadline used to be BEFORE the all-star break! (Mid-June, if I recall correctly)

OK. But if you set it up so that Cleveland couldn't pull him back once they put him on the waiver wire, and once Boston claimed Byrd they would have to either sign him to a new deal, or (failing that) pick up his remaining contract, then teams would (A) only put players on the waiver wire that they really wanted to waive, and (B) acquiring teams would only move to pick up players they really wanted acquire or were willing to sign, and not simply grab players they don't really want in order to block rivals from acquiring them. The way things are now, the waiver wire system, as I understand it (or maybe, misunderstand it) is in some respects set up to encourage the non-movement of players, except for the purpose of dumping a salary. I would think the union might be opposed to that, but I guess it benefits the players somehow. The system you are describing is the one that exists. Remember, teams have the option of placing a player on revocable waivers or irrevocable waivers. The situation you describe is what happens with a guy like Canseco going to the Yankees. In the current system there is the risk for the claiming team that they may get stuck with someone if they claim him. A deal sending Canseco to the Sox had been struck, all that was left was for him to clear waivers. The Skanks claimed him to block the deal, and... I forget who had Jose at the time, but they were pissed because they stood to pick up a player they wanted if the deal went through with Boston. Now that that was messed up, they just dumped him on the Skanks. I think the confusion is the notion that trade talks don't begin until a player clears waivers; that's not always the case. In *most* cases, though, teams put ALL their players on waivers (you're allowed, I believe, 7 a day) just to see who might be interested. Most players clear waivers and we never hear about it. By having that in place, though, it also forces teams to be on the lookout, lest a Paul Byrd slip by without being taken.

I have to agree with Dan on this one; the answer to "why" is because it works. Otherwise, let's assume I'm Cleveland with a grudge, and Paul Byrd *doesn't* go to Boston. I pull him back and re-waive him so the Rays can pick him up. Great for the Rays, but sets a bad precedent for teams to bear out grudges. The primary difference between Phillips explanation and Dan/wiki is the timing. It's actually a touch more contrived. For instance, teams have 47.5 hours to work a deal, not 48, and 'why?' I have *no* idea. But Phillips' explanation really let you see how intricate and hard to manage the whole thing was, but it was also very understandable. It did interest me that you have to clear waivers in your own league first -- yet another argument for doing away with interleague play.

Oooo, cough syrup.

Coltrane -- Impressions -- Live at the Showboat

You can listen online at www.mpbn.net and/or use the audio-on-demand feature to listen to shows from the past 2 months. Coming up in September: Friday 9/5 - Lawrence D. "Butch" Morris Conductions, Part 1 Friday 9/12 - Lawrence D. "Butch" Morris Conductions, Part 2 Friday 9/19 - Sam Rivers/Dave Holland Friday 9/26 - Big Band Music from Sam Rivers, and David Murray (conducted by Butch Morris) Next month - New Releases If you do listen, and like what you hear, please drop MPBN an e-mail letting them know.

F*ck Manny with a donkey dick. Good riddance to him and his inability to hold a turd for an inning.

Yes, with Dice being one of them, they seem poised to be the first team to try the 6-man rotation.

If you're an ESPN insider, Steve Phillips does a great job explaining it here. I'm not an insider, or I'd just post it. He explained it on BBTN, too. Skanks are letting it happen how it happens this year. They've clearly decided not to mortgage the future, which is unfortunate, because they have a lot of young talent waiting in the wings. Hopefully, it backfires.

What NL team can afford him? He'll be a Skank... count on it.

Moot point. Pauley optioned, Jeff Bailey recalled.

Not gonna happen.

I'm willing to believe there's slightly faster healing but you can't tell me that its not just like any other oblique strain: there's a decent chance of it lingering, and its easy to re-injure if you come back too soon. And, I was talking about Lugo in September when he returns. There's no doubt that Youk will play 3B except that I am sure they'll put Lowrie there occasionally whenever they face a tough lefty that Casey is likely to have trouble with. Still like to see what Carter can do -- like to see what we got for Bronson Arroyo. Oblique strains are tricky, but for the right-handed hitter/thrower, your exerting greater strain on the front side (hitting) of the torso than the back side. Also, throwing, even though the motion is on the right side, your left side expands and contracts (like crunch) more with the act of throwing. Both are serious and may linger, but the left-side requires much more care (time) be taken with a comeback. If it's a mild strain, he could easily return to active duty in 7-10 days; if it's severe, more like 2-3 weeks (for an athlete; stiffs like us would be useless at least 2-3 weeks! )

Right-side oblique strain will heal quicker for a righty than a left-side oblique strain. If it's the right, that is good news. If he has to be DL'd, fahk Lugo, I'd much rather see them stay with Lowrie at SS and move Youk to 3B and see what Chris Carter has to offer at 1B.

Yeah, I missed that. Was it two 2-point conversions or 3 field goals? Or a missed PAT?

I keep seeing people say this, but this year, that has NOT been the case -- check the game-by-game stats at ESPN. Wake, arguably, has been the most consistent starter on this staff. I don't want him as my "ace," but give the man his due -- he's been highly consistent this year.

SCHWING!!!!!!! :excited:

Yeah, but Rocco can play every other day. Shit. Just keep the Skanks out of it, please.

This just in: Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Go Wt. Sox, Twins and Rays. Please have the two evil empires of the east stay home this fall. Please.

The mere thought of that is like Viagra for my soul.

Good point. Per the closer discussion, if the scenario is that Pap is going to *save* three games in a row, I'd agree with you. But if we're asking if he's going to pitch in three games where he gets a save, that's a different question. Given that we DON'T know in advance what the circumstance will be, I think you have to play the game for today. If you consider the Putz example, I think it's likely that if he'd entered a close game in the 7th during that two week skid the M's had, pitched 2-1/3, and maybe picked up a W instead of a save, that might have been enough to inspire a listless team. Instead, he was reserved for his 9th-inning role, as the team hopped right in the toilet without a life jacket. Another situation where you might want to use your best reliever is maybe in the eighth inning you have the #3 hitter get on base. You bring in your best reliever to face the 4,5,6 hitters. If he gets them without allowing a run, you can have anybody pitch the 9th to get the 7,8,9 hitters. Another good point, and truly, this is something we do see occasionally. Perhaps not the exact scenario, but I've seen both Torre (in past seasons) and Tito go to Mo and Pap respectively a little early if somebody gets on-base.

Testify, brother.