Chicago Expat

Ah, I haven't had Red Breast in over a year. Ever since I moved down to Bluegrass Country, it's been exploring the world of bourbon. But at certain bars in Chicago, Red Breast was always nice choice for getting a higher quality whiskey without having to go into double digits on the price. Good luck on your brackets. I think this is the first year I won't be filling any out in, crap, maybe forever.

I really wanted to like that one more than I did. I own a couple Binney albums and plan to buy a few other things with his name on it. I decided to shelve that album for a later date, just chalk up my first impression as just not being in the mood. I think Binney is a real nice talent. Glad you liked it.

Two releases this month by Steven Lugerner, a multi-instrumentalist I just discovered today. The first... "Narrative" by the Steven Lugerner Septet Steven Lugerner - Soprano & Alto Saxophones, Clarinets Lucas Pino - Tenor Saxophone & Flute Itamar Borochov - Trumpet and Flugelhorn Angelo Spagnolo - Guitar Glenn Zaleski - Piano Ross Gallagher - Bass Michael W. Davis - Drums Aptly titled album, as the recording has the intimate feel of a good epic novel. Has sort of a Guillermo Klein meets Brian Blade feel to it. I've been streaming this album all day long today and still can't get enough of it. Nice layering of sounds, sounds seamless in its construction. There's some guitar work on this album I love, some odd playing that's so deftly ambient; don't know what he's doing, but love it. The other album he's releasing this month... "These are the Words" - Steven Lugerner Quartet Steven Lugerner - Saxophones, Clarinets, Double Reeds and Flute Darren Johnston - Trumpet & Flugelhorn Myra Melford - Piano Matt Wilson - Drums More challenging of a sound. Actually, when I saw Myra Melford was on the album, the way this album sounded didn't surprise me at all. "These are the Words" is the sour to "Narratives" sweet... I don't think that's too terribly dopey to say. The last song on this album ("The Evening Episode") might be my favorite song of both albums. He's on amazon and emusic. You can also buy either album on Bandcamp for $8 and $7 respectively or get the physical cds for that price. ALSO... You can stream both albums in their entirety on his Bandcamp site. http://stevenlugerner.bandcamp.com/album/these-are-the-words I've been listening to these albums over and over all day long.

At this point, the entire world is locked out. If the owners decide to field teams this year, they can hire, in theory, whomever they want. The NFL had a lockout/strike back in '87. Non-union/scab players were fielded by NFL teams. Some union NFL players broke the strike line, though a lot of that had to do with contracts that would've been voided had they not shown; most of those union-players played very little if at all, if my memory is correct. It was a different NFL legal landscape back then. I doubt player contracts wouldn't have clauses that dealt with this issue these days. All in all, revenues were down big time. Owners lost money, players lost money, the NFL lost fans... it was a bad deal for all. Then they got a deal done. Now they're going through it again. No signal yet from owners whether they're entertaining the idea of scab games or not. EDIT: Also, game quality was miserable. The NFL became a joke in terms of talent with the replacement players. No, the union, from a legal standpoint, is over. It's what allowed individual players to sue the NFL under anti-trust, to say to a judge, hey, these bastards are a monopoly and they're screwing with us and out livelihoods. All of this is correct. It's owner vs. player, player vs. player, owner vs. owner. Something I was remiss in mentioning above regarding the signing bonus vs. guaranteed contracts in the post above is that a big thing that will come out of the new CBA will be a rookie wage scale. Currently, the biggest salary/signing bonuses aren't going to the biggest PROVEN stars, but the first round draft choice UNPROVEN rookies. Many of these guys flame out and it's all wasted money. The new rookie wage scale will shift a lot of that guaranteed money/cap space to players who've been in the league longer and who deserve it. The NBA, which also has a salary cap system (though it's considered "soft" because of ways to legally get around it, purposefully planned that way by the league), it has a rookie wage scale which has been a big help to teams, as well as veteran minimum wage salaries as compared to non-vet min salaries, etc. The NFL will likely explore some of these other alternate wage scales. And they should.

I guarantee you anyone selling beer at the stadium or cleaning up ain't making much money, and that any loss of income is categorized as significant. Plus, they probably have cobbled together two or three jobs together that all kind've fit into a year's job schedule, which makes it difficult to replace the NFL portion of that job schedule. It's not going to apply to all NFL-reliant positions (I think grounds crew has a different type of deal), but, yes, there are going to be some grunts that take a hit, making less annual income when they were already barely getting by. I think the best players should make more money. The NFL has a healthy minimum salary level, though it's arguable if it's high enough in the scheme of things considering that many of these players, talented and average alike, have trouble walking and thinking by the time their career is over. Signing bonuses are the NFL's version of MLB's guaranteed contracts. I don't know that scrapping the current system for a more direct form of guaranteed contracts would change much of anything. I suppose players would have to wait longer to receive their money. MLB's union make the NFL union look like chumps. There are some fabulously mediocre MLB players receiving some exorbitant guaranteed salaries. I mean, you've got utility second basemen getting seven figures.

Something to keep in mind about pocketing the difference, unless a team is determined to spend as little as possible on salaries every single year, that money unspent on salaries during the current year is likely to get spent on future years. Because, remember, even though the team is able to amortize the huge signing bonuses over the length of the contract, they still have to have the actual cash in the bank to pay those bonuses to the players on signing day. Some teams will spend less than their maximum allowed cap salaries during a current year in order to have extra real cash on hand to target a player they want in the upcoming free agency period. Some teams, like NY or Dallas, rarely have to worry about cash on hand as a guiding principle, but small-market teams like the Chiefs and Bucs may have issues regarding their bank account balance. Of course, this is speculation on my part since I don't have access to their books, and besides, it's all relative anyways... this is huge money we're talking about and a dispute between billionaires and their millionaire employees. The people I feel sorry for are the temp employees who need jobs like selling beer at the stadiums or stadium clean-up crews or ticket agents... all the hourly grunts who really need those jobs that result from an NFL schedule.

Thanks. I just grabbed the numbers from a quick google search. Semi-random, and meant only to illustrate that some owners spend more, some less. As best I can understand, every team is "required" to spend a certain amount (against the cap). I'm guessing that in 2010 KC was somewhere around the minimum threshold while the NY Giants were in the upper end of that range. I'd also guess that the ownership in KC basically pocketed the difference. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hard to cry poor if you do. I recall that back in the day Bucs' owner Hugh Culverhouse made handsome profits year after year owning a losing team. Just kept the profits and didn't invest in the product. Generated a nice return. Okay, a couple things now that I'm wrapping up my second cup of coffee... Your numbers actually may not reflect a salary cap disparity. The 2010 year was an uncapped year based on the last CBA. Now, most teams actually still treated it like a capped year, because when a new CBA is put into place, those contracts will have to abide by it, so teams didn't want to shackle themselves to contracts that put them into a bind like the hypotheses I presented above. However, with the current year, there may have been some wide discrepancies, so I'm no longer confident without looking more into your specific numbers to attribute them to cap vs. actual salaries. And, yes, there is a cap floor, which is 90% of cap "ceiling". So if each team in 2009 had a cap allocation/ceiling of $128 million on which to use on salaries, their required floor (the minimum on which to spend those salaries) would be 90% of that $128 million, which comes to about $115 million. Regarding your old-school Bucs, I don't think there was a salary cap/floor back then. I want to say that didn't show up until the early nineties. But, yeah, I recall some bad Bucs teams in the old Central Division back in the day and the payrolls to match their poor on-the-field output.

It seems like they are more than 'pass-through agents' here. The top payroll in the league in 2009-10 was the NY Giants at $138 million. The bottom payroll was the KC Chiefs at $81 million. What accounts for the disparity? Well, some of that will be related to the difference between the salary cap and the salary floor (about 90% of the salary cap number). But without researching the numbers you pulled, I'm gonna say that those salary numbers you posted are actual amounts paid out, but don't represent "Salary Cap Salaries" for the 2009-10 year. What causes the biggest discrepancy there has to do with signing bonuses. What happens is that when a player signs a new contract, let's say 5 years for $30 million, that player may get a $20 million signing bonus as part of that $30 million total. That's guaranteed money up front. The players gets that $20 million even if the team cuts him one week later. It's probably also reflected in the numbers you posted above. But in terms of the salary cap, that $20 million signing bonus, even though it's paid on day one, the salary cap effect (or "cap hit") is spread out over the life of the contract. So even though the team paid out $20 million (plus any current amounts due of the remaining $10 million) during year one, only $4 million of the signing bonus ($20 million divided by 5 years of the life of the contract) is applied toward the salary cap of the current year. So, even though you have that huge disparity in your posted salary numbers, the "cap amount" for the current year would have those teams much much closer in salary amounts paid. Now, you're thinking, that seems like a way to circumvent the salary cap. In some ways it is, but what comes back to haunt teams who give the big signing bonuses is the backend of those contracts. Because for our above hypothesized player contract (and let's say for the sake of argument that the remaining $10 million is spread evenly over all five years, thus $2 million per year), even though in year two the team is only paying the player $2 million bucks, the player's "cap hit" is actually $6 million ($2 million Year 2 salary + $4 million of amortized signing bonus)... that's $4 million less that the team can use of the Year 2 salary cap on other players. This becomes a huge hindrance, especially if the hypothesized player turns out to be a real suck-fest or he gets injured or suspended or any reason for which you need to replace him, because now you not only have less cap money to pay other players but you also need cap space to pay his replacement. And the thing is, you can't necessarily cut him, because that could, depending on the terms of the contract, screw the team's cap space even more. Let's say our above player gets cut during year two of the contract. That $20 million signing bonus, instead of being amortized against the cap over the 5-year life of the contract, now it's gonna be amortized over the effective two-year life of the contract, which means the player's cap hit against Year 2 is now a little under $12 million (original $4 million signing bonus amortization + original $2million Year 2 salary - pro-rated Year 2 salary saved by cutting player mid-season + additional cap hit from signing bonus now pro-rated over two years of $6 million). I can't remember, actually, how the re-allocation of the signing bonus on a cut player works, if some of that money goes to a previous year and potential penalties of that re-amortization brings them over the salary cap or if, in fact, the entire $16 million of unamortized signing bonus is applied in Year 2/Current-Year cap space, but that's over and above this conversation. Anyways, Paps, I think that explains the disparity. P.S. Still not a labor lawyer.

Ah, sorry. Here's the thing, all this money that's being made... tv revenues, ad revenues, merchandising, etc etc* aren't going into the owners' pockets for them to then fund their respective teams payrolls with. I mean, procedurally it may happen this way, but I believe that it works more to the effect of a giant revenue pool which no side (owners vs. players) have a right to without an agreement on how to divvy it all up. (*I don't think ticket sales and stadium-specific revenues are part of the equation here; I think those go directly into the individual team owner's pocket) The owner portion of the revenues (I think previously set at around 40% of total revenues) goes directly into the owners pockets, which they can use to upgrade their stadium or eat at Gibson's every night of the week. I'm pretty sure that money is theirs free and clear. The players portion of that money is disbursed to players in the form of salaries. This is done through the salary cap (and related floor), which basically "gives" the money to the owners to pay the players they want on their team. The salary cap (and floor) is the same for all teams. So, see, even though the owners are "getting" the players share of revenues, they're really just acting as pass-through agents, and I suppose, since they choose who gets to be on the team, sorting mechanisms as well. There's also a cut of those revenues that goes towards retired player pensions and benefits, and there's also other current player benefits it does toward, but the majority of player-related revenue sharing is for salaries. In theory, if NFL owners wanted to field a team, they could use whomever they wanted, but I think they wouldn't have a right to any of those revenues. I believe those would stay in an escrow of some sort. I think they'd have to come to a separate agreement with tv,radio,media,merchandisers if they wanted to begin fielding scab teams. Honestly, I can't remember how that whole thing was handled during the last strike back in the eighties. This whole paragraph is kinda doubtful, based on memory first thing in the morning. But I think the only way for owners and players to get at that money is for a new CBA to be in place, and by decertifying the union, well, there can be no new CBA if there's no entity which can legally bargain on behalf of the players as a collective whole. The thing is, the owners were already going to lock them out, so it's not like that was an impediment to anything. EDIT: I should add that I haven't become a labor lawyer in the interval between my first post and this one.

I'm not a labor or any kind of lawyer. By decertifying, it allows the players to individually sue the NFL under anti-trust law. As far as the lock out goes, it doesn't change anything. The owners and players still have to come to an agreement over how to divide up revenues. That's gonna have to happen before football gets played again. Unlike certain state governments, it was never about trying to break up the union.

That's pretty funny that they beat the Lakers. The Heat, though, they've got problems. By playoff time, there's gonna be some tired legs in the starting rotation. Not saying that can't ride their tired legs through the playoffs, but they will be hobbled. Which is bad, because their whole D is predicated on being able to shift like mad through schemes, and if those legs don't got any life, they're not gonna be contesting shots so well and preventing drives to the basket. Add to that problem, they're not exactly getting any consistent rebounding from Bosh 'cause they got him playing out of position most of the time. A team goes into the playoffs with a weakened defense and shoddy rebounding (not to mention the Heat's odd streaks of missed free throws), well, it's an iffy proposition that they'll go very deep. But who knows. I'm only a genius when it comes to predicting football, baseball, and boxing. I'm only half-a-genius with basketball.

I've only begun to dig into his discography, but I've found some things to like thus far, and then also some things that don't appeal to me as much. Those in the latter category seem to be the ones influenced by his classical roots, but that's just a first impression. Portal appeals to me much in the same way Benjamin Koppel does. Their careers and sounds seem to share some common ground.

The Heat are on a pace to win 55 games this season. That's just 8 more than last season. It's also 6 less wins than Cleveland had last year. I know this season ain't about wins, it's about rings. But still...

I've witnessed some pretty specious pricing at the Half Price Books in Kentucky as well (Louisville & Lexington locations). I don't much even bother looking anymore. Bad enough that I've traded my Chicago stores for bluegrass ones, worse when I encounter misguided pricing decisions like that.

Also, Mathias Eick has a new album coming out soon on ECM. His last album, "The Door" was astounding... a perfect rainy day album. Eick's "Door" had more life that a typical ECM modern day release does and brilliantly managed to incorporate a slide guitar into the flow of things. His new album is called "Skala". Here's the ECM player with samples. It's probably all we'll get. Eicher/ECM is pathetically stingy with preview listens of ECM albums, and the individual musicians seem to fall right in line behind him. Tough to even find a handful of tracks on a myspace for some of these guys. But that's my personal gripe. The new Eick album still sound intriguing. http://player.ecmrecords.com/eick

Michel Portal's new album "Bailador" just popped up on emusic. Personnel: Michel Portal: bass clarinet, alto saxophone, soprano saxophone; Ambrose Akinmusire: trumpet; Lionel Loueke: guitar; Bojan Z: piano; Scott Colley: bass; Jack DeJohnette: drums. Portal is a new discovery for me. Apparently he was heavily involved in the free improvisation movement, and from the track samples and youtube vids I've seen from this album and past, those influences can be heard, but this doesn't sound like a free jazz album. Tough to say, since I'll have to buy it to listen to it to see if it's up my alley, lol. I probably will pick this up eventually. I'm sizing up an album he did of reinterpretations of songs he did for soundtracks. Bailador has a hell of a line-up, that's for sure. It's also now available at Amazon as a DL for just a buck more. I'll probably buy at Amazon.

Here is a place you can stream the album (legally) to decide if you want to purchase it. Thanks to the gracious gesture to the Cuchi tribute site and Klein himself to allow the stream of his beautiful album. http://cuchitribute.com/ I'm a big Klein fan. While Domador isn't my favorite of his albums, once an artist accumulates a solid body of work, the word 'favorite' loses its currency some. Domador a solid album and I'm glad I bought it. Cheers.

Heh, that's one that me and my wife play as part of our unconventional christmas playlist (The Who's "Tommy" gets played, too) at home before we head to the big family get together.

That's a good one. Got that for Christmas the year before last.

Ah, thank you for that. I knew it had to be somewhere on here. I'm not having that problem myself, but it may one day be helpful.

I'm really enjoying "Bob's Burgers", a new half hour animated show on Fox. It's got a lot of the adult swim "Home Movies" crowd involved in it, and you can tell. It's got that modern-day-Peanuts absurdism and warmth. Every episode I've seen thus far has reduced me to tears, usually from some of the silliest things. The voice of the youngest daughter is done delightfully by the female stalker/biggest fan from Flight of the Commodores, Bob is the voice from "Home Movies" Coach. The show is terribly clever.

thx. did you see the ubiquitos bud lite bottle stuck in the bridge? And wasn't there also a God Saves or Jesus Saves sign in a window seen through a patchwork of steel and tree branches?

On my old Windows, there was a place I could check and uncheck the applications that I wanted to open automatically at start-up. I'm not sure where that happens on a Mac. iChat shouldn't be showing up without you clicking on it. I'll nose around my system preferences and see if I can find a place that allows you to switch it off. Perhaps it's something with the ichat software preferences. Let us know what happens with Safari and Firefox. I'll be interested to hear the result of the update and reboot of your system.

I picked it up from Amie, too. Must've been right when it hit, 'cause it didn't cost much when I got it, maybe two bucks max. I still haven't made it past the first track. I grabbed it as one of those maybe-one-day albums that gather dust on my shelf until some miraculous day when I listen to it for no good reason and wonder how I ever got by without it for so long. I'm encouraged to find this thread and good things said about it.

Is your Mac OS up to date? Click on the apple icon in the top left corner. The second choice down on the drop-down menu says "Software Update". Click on that. It will likely pop up a window that asks you for your system admin password. Give it. There may be several options of things to update. Put a check in the box of anything that says O/S, but also any firefox, safari, and adobe updates (pretty much any firefox update I've ever done required an adobe one as well, so just get 'em out of the way together). Some of the updates may be irrelevant to your current problem or even your mac as a going concern. Choose what seems appropriate. When it's done, you'll have to restart your computer. Hopefully that will take care of your error message regarding functionality to download current versions of safari and/or firefox. By the by, I use Firefox as my browser of choice, but certain sites (Amazon, for one) default to the Safari browser. For the sake of simplicity, I let Safari hang around. I will re-read your thread. I'm trying to understand your problem exactly. I may or may not be any help. I'm a recent Mac user and haven't exactly embraced a learn-it-all approach like I did long ago with Windows. P.S. My OS version is 10.5.8, and I think I'm up to date, so your update function should get you clear.